INTERPRETATION    OF   THE    BIBLE 
A   SHORT   HISTORY 


THE  MACMILLAN  COMPANY 

NEW  YORK    •    BOSTON   •    CHICAGO 
ATLANTA  •    SAN   FRANCISCO 

MACMILLAN  &  CO.,  Limited 

LONDON    ■    BOMBAY   •    CALCUTIA 
MELBOURNE 

THE  MACMILLAN  CO.  OF  CANADA,  Ltd. 

TORONTO 


INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  BIBLE 
A  SHORT  HISTORY 


GEORGE  HOLLEY  GILBERT,  Ph.D.,  D.D., 

AUTHOR   OF 
"THE   student's   LIFE    OF   JESUS,"    "THE    REVELATION   OF 
JESUS,"    "  THE   student's   LIFE   OF   PAUL,"    "  A    HIS- 
TORY OF   CHRISTIANITY    IN   THE   APOSTOLIC 
AGE,"    ETC. 


Nefa  gork 

THE   MACMILLAN    COMPANY 

1908 

AH  rights  reserved 


Copyright,  1908, 
By  the  MACMILLAN  COMPANY. 

Set  up  and  electrotyped.     Published  February,  1908. 


Nottoool)  ^rc38 

J.  S.  Gushing  Co.  —  Keiwick  &  Smith  Co. 

Norwood,  Mass.,  U.S.A. 


PREFACE 

This  book  surveys  a  great  but  neglected  field.  The 
greatness  of  the  field  is  not  easily  overestimated,  whether 
we  regard  its  extent  and  complexity,  or  its  importance. 
It  stretches  back  through  twenty  centuries;  it  touches 
both  the  intellectual  and  the  religious  life  of  Jew  and  Chris- 
tian on  many  sides ;  and  it  brings  us  into  immediate  con- 
tact with  those  processes  which  underHe  all  historic  creeds 
and  all  our  religious  institutions.  Coleridge  has  some- 
where remarked  that  the  history  of  a  word  is  often  more 
interesting  and  significant  than  the  history  of  a  campaign. 
That  is  most  true,  also,  of  the  history  of  the  interpretation 
of  a  word,  and  especially  a  word  of  the  Scriptures.  Out 
of  their  sound  interpretation  have  come  beneficial  enfran- 
chising influences,  which  have  been  promotive  of  the  best 
civilization,  while  out  of  their  misinterpretation  has  flowed 
the  inspiration  for  the  crudest  wrongs  in  Christian  history. 

But  this  wide  field  of  the  history  of  interpretation  has 
been  neglected.  The  English  language  has  but  one  origi- 
nal work  on  the  subject,  and  even  that,  with  all  its  ex- 
cellences, practically  omits  one  of  the  most  fundamental 
sections  in  the  history  of  interpretation,  viz.,  the  inter- 
pretation   of    the    Old    Testament    in    the    New.^     The 

*  F.  W.  Farrar,  History  of  Interpretation,  1886. 

V 


VI  PREFACE 

poverty  of  other  languages  in  the  Hterature  of  our  subject 
is  quite  as  great  as  that  of  our  own.  The  French  writer 
Simon  in  his  Histoire  Critique  (1693)  treats  the  history  of 
interpretation  incidentally,  the  German  work  of  Meyer  ' 
more  comprehensively  indeed,  yet  by  no  means  as  one 
would  treat  it  to-day,  and  both  these  works  have  long  since 
been  forgotten  except  by  the  special  student. 

Whatever  reason  there  may  have  been  in  the  past  for 
the  neglect  of  this  field,  —  lack  of  materials,  lack  of  the  his- 
torical spirit,  lack  of  religious  freedom,  or  other  causes,  — 
there  appears  to  be  no  excuse  for  it  at  the  present  time; 
and,  moreover,  the  unparalleled  progress  of  the  last  half 
century  in  biblical  research  lends  new  emphasis  to  the  need 
of  fresh  investigations  in  this  neglected  field. 

What  the  history  of  interpretation  is  capable  of  con- 
tributing to  a  more  intelligent  use  of  the  Bible  will,  it  is 
hoped,  be  suggested  at  least  by  the  present  volume,  though 
it  is  not  here  adequately  shown.  The  praise  of  such  a 
finished  achievement  must  be  reserved  for  some  yet  un- 
written work. 

*  Geschichte  der  Schrifterkldntng,  1802-1809.  —  A  number  of  works 
on  Hcrmeneutics,  particularly  German,  devote  some  space  to  the  history 
of  interpretation. 


CONTENTS 

CHAP.  PAGE 

I.    Classical  Jewish   Interpretation  of  the   Old 

Testament i 

II.     Philo  of    Alexandria  as   Interpreter  of   the 

Old   Testament 35 

III.  The  Old  Testament  interpreted  in  the  New  .  58 

IV.  Scripture    Interpretation    from    Clement    of 

Rome  to  Iren^us 88 

V.     The  Alexandrian  Type  of  Exegesis    .        .        .  108 

VI.     The  Syrian  Type  of  Exegesis       ....  132 

VII.     Biblical  Interpretation  in  the  Middle  Ages    .  146 

VIII.     Interpretation  of  Scripture  by  the  Reformers  iSr 

IX.     Interpretation    of    Scripture    in    the    Seven- 
teenth and  Eighteenth  Centuries          .        .  224 

X.     The    Scientific    Era   of    Biblical    Interpreta- 
tion          260 

INDEXES 293 


A  SHORT  HISTORY  OF  THE 
INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  BIBLE 


CHAPTER   I 

CLASSICAL   JEWISH   INTERPRETATION   OF   THE   OLD   TESTA- 
MENT 

As  the  Old  Testament  holds  a  unique  place  in  the 
creative  literature  of  the  world's  religions,  so  the  inter- 
pretation of  the  Old  Testament  by  that  people  to  whom 
it  was  originally  given  holds  a  unique  position  in  the  vast 
literature  devoted  to  the  interpretation  of  the  Christian 
Scriptures.  It  is  the  only  portion  of  that  literature  which 
was  orally  transmitted  for  generations;  it  is  also  the  only 
portion  of  that  literature  which  has  determined  the  very 
existence  of  an  entire  people,  and  completely  dominated 
their  intellectual  development;  finally,  it  is  the  portion 
of  that  literature  which  surpasses  all  others  in  its  almost 
incredible  industry  and  ingenuity. 

This  Jewish  interpretation  of  the  Old  Testament  must 
form  the  first  chapter  of  our  survey  of  the  interpretation  of 
the  Bible ;  for  though  its  chief  literary  products  are  much 
later  than  the  New  Testament  and  Philo,  and  even  than 
the  early  Fathers  of  the  Church,  its  essential  spirit  and 


2  THE   INTERPRETATION   OF  THE   BIBLE 

method,  and  probably  also  no  inconsiderable  part  of  its 
material,  antedated  the  Christian  era.  It  is  not  needful 
for  our  purpose  to  attempt  even  a  cursory  survey  of  the 
entire  course  of  Jewish  interpretation.  It  was  only  the 
earlier  period,  the  classic  age  of  this  interpretation,  that 
exercised  a  wide  and  abiding  influence  upon  the  Christian 
Church.  This  classic  age,  when  we  have  regard  to  its 
literary  deposit,  terminated  with  the  fifth  century.  Illus- 
trious Jewish  scholars  arose  from  time  to  time  in  subse- 
quent centuries,  such  as  Saadia  (t  about  942),  INIaimonides 
(t  about  1204),  and  Kimchi  (f  1240),  and  these,  indeed, 
were  not  without  great  influence  on  Christian  exegesis, 
but  they  are  not  to  be  reckoned  with  the  founders  of  the 
Mishna  and  Talmud. 

The  period  in  which  the  classic  Jewish  literature  of 
the  Old  Testament  was  produced  began  with  Ezra  in  the 
fifth  century  B.C.  and  ended  with  the  Tajmud  about  500  a.d. 
The  political  history  of  the  Jewish  people  during  these 
more  than  nine  centuries  is  summed  up  in  four  periods  of 
dependence  —  the  Persian,  the  Egyptian,  the  Greek,  and 
the  Roman  —  and  a  brief  period  of  independence  under 
the  Hasmonean  dynasty.*  The  religious  life  and  develop- 
ment of  the  people  during  the  first  four  centuries  of  this 
period  is  lighted  up  only  at  a  few  points  and  then  in  a  par- 
tial manner.  We  are  aware,  indeed,  that  a  powerful  reli- 
gious current  flowed  down  through  Jewish  history  from 

*  That  part  of  the  Persian  period  which  was  subsequent  to  Ezra  was 
about  a  century  and  a  quarter,  458-332  B.C.;  the  Egyptian  period  of 
about  the  same  length,  320-198  n.c. ;  the  Greek  198-142  B.C.;  the  Has- 
monean 142-63  B.C.;  and  the  Roman  63  B.C.-455  a.d. 


CLASSICAL  JEWISH  INTERPRETATION  3 

the  time  of  Ezra  to  the  beginning  of  the  Christian  era,  but 
it  cannot  be  traced  in  detail  from  generation  to  generation. 
It  is  for  the  most  part  as  a  stream  that  flows  underground. 
We  know,  indeed,  something  of  its  origin  and  its  initial 
character,  we  see  its  tremendous  force  in  the  heroic  history 
of  the  Maccabees,  and  we  have  yet  fuller  knowledge  of  it 
when  it  reaches  the  days  of  Hillel  and  Schammai. 

The  religious  current  of  which  we  speak,  which  mani- 
fested itself  in  the  creation  of  the  synagogue,  the  institution 
of  scribism,  and  the  elaboration  of  a  great  legal  system 
on  the  basis  of  the  Pentateuch,  plainly  had  its  origin  with 
Ezra,  a  great-grandson,  apparently,  of  Hilkiah  (Ezra  7: 
1-5;  2  Kings  22  :  4),  whose  finding  of  the  "book  of  the 
law"  in  621  B.C.  made  the  reign  of  King  Josiah  forever 
memorable.  This  Ezra,  a  Babylonian  Jew  who  had  "set 
his  heart  to  teach  in  Israel  statutes  and  judgments"  (Ezra 
7  :  10),  returning  to  Judea  in  the  seventh  year  of  Artaxerxes 
(Ezra  7:7),  was  with  Nehemiah  the  author  of  a  profound 
moral  reformation,  and  succeeded  in  making  the  little 
remnant  of  the  captivity  a  compact  people  of  the  law.  His 
pulpit  of  wood  that  stood  in  the  broad  place  before  the 
water  gate,  from  which,  during  all  the  days  of  the  feast  of 
Tabernacles  from  early  dawn  until  midday,  he  read  to 
men  and  women  the  law  of  Moses  (Neh.  8  13,  18),  was,  in 
its  significance  for  the  future  of  the  Jewish  people,  second 
only  to  Mt.  Sinai  itself  from  which  the  great  lawgiver 
had  descended  with  his  ten  fundamental  "words."  All 
who  had  "knowledge  and  understanding"  (Neh.  10  :  28), 
the  priests  and  nobles  and  leaders  of  the  people,  "entered 
into  a  curse  and  into  an  oath  to  walk  in  God's  law  which 


4  THE   INTERPRETATION   OF   THE    BIBLE 

was  given  by  Moses,  the  servant  of  God,  and  to  observe 
and  do  all  the  commandments  of  the  Lord  and  his  judg- 
ments and  his  statutes"  (Neh.  lo:  29).  Here  then  was  a 
solemn  "league  and  covenant"  of  the  Jewish  remnant  to 
order  their  lives  strictly  according  •  to  an  external  law. 
This  covenant  was  made  about  the  year  444  b.c.^  Simul- 
taneously with  this  adoption  of  the  law  arose  the  necessity 
of  having  teachers  and  interpreters  who  should  instruct 
the  people  in  the  law  and  determine  its  apphcation  to  the 
new  and  varied  needs  of  the  present  hour.  Ezra  brought 
some  teachers  with  him  from  Babylon  (Ezra  8:  16).  At 
the  time  of  the  historic  reading  of  the  law,  to  which  we 
have  referred,  he  had  thirteen  helpers  who  are  mentioned 
by  name  (Neh.  8:7),  besides  certain  Levitcs  who  were 
able  to  make  the  people  understand  the  teaching  of  the 
law.  He  also  had  authority  from  Artaxerxes  to  appoint 
as  magistrates  and  judges  those  who  knew  the  laws  of  God 
(Ezra  7:25),  which  ordinance  manifestly  made  his  atti- 
tude toward  the  law  and  his  type  of  interpretation  domi- 
nant for  his  time. 

It  is  natural,  almost  necessar}^,  to  suppose  that  Ezra 
and  the  men  associated  with  him  left  some  sort  of  organized 
court  to  continue  their  authority,  but  we  have  no  certain 
knowledge  of  such  an  institution.  The  "Great  Syna- 
gogue" is  a  shadowy  institution,  supposed  to  have  existed 
from  the  time  of  Ezra  to  that  of  Simon  the  Just  (221  B.C.). 
According  to  the  Pirqe  Ahoth  and  the  Ahoth  of  Rabbi 
Nathan  ^  it  was  an  important  link  in  the  chain  of  authori- 

*  See  Wellhausen,  History  of  Israel,  p.  407. 

'  See  Taylor,  P/rge /I fto//^,  pp.  I lo-ii I ;  yl6o//j  of  R.  Nathan,  i;  Weber, 
Tudische  Theologie,  pp.  3,  6,  7. 


CLASSICAL   JEWISH    INTERPRETATION  5 

ties  by  which  the  traditional  law  was  handed  down  from 
Moses.  To  this  body  were  ascribed  the  significant  sen- 
tences, "Be  circumspect  in  judgment;  raise  up  many 
scholars ;  make  a  hedge  about  the  law."  The  first  of  these 
sentences  may  have  had  a  special  reference  to  the  preserva- 
tion of  colonial  freedom  under  the  Persian  yoke,  which 
might  be  forfeited  through  the  acts  of  incompetent  judges. 
The  third  sentence  is  our  earliest  illustration  of  a  tendency 
which  came  to  be  of  very  great  significance;  that  is,  the 
tendency  to  guard  against  the  transgression  of  the  law  by 
the  enactment  and  enforcement  of  a  multitude  of  protec- 
tive ordinances.  The  conception  of  the  law  which  is 
involved  in  this  injunction  is  like  that  which  is  attributed 
to  Simon  the  Just,^  who  said  that  the  world  rests  on  three 
things  —  the  Torah,  the  temple  service,  and  good  works.^ 
This  teaching  makes  an  acquaintance  with  the  law  and  ob- 
servance of  its  statutes  the  matter  of  supreme  importance, 
and  such,  no  doubt,  it  was  already  in  the  time  of  Ezra. 
The  central  element  in  his  observance  of  Tabernacles 
was  the  reading  of  the  law,  as  has  been  noted  above ;  and 
on  the  day  when  the  wall  of  Jerusalem  was  dedicated,  the 
book  of  Moses  was  read  in  the  audience  of  the  people 
(Neh.  13 :  i).  This  was  a  sign  of  a  new  era  in  the  history 
of  Israel,  an  era  in  which  the  scribe,  the  professional 
interpreter  of  the  sacred  law,  was  to  occupy  a  position  of 


*  High  priest  221-202  B.C.  according  to  Jost,  Gottesdienstliche  Vortrdge, 
p.  36,  or  identical  with  Simon  I,  who  was  high  priest  at  the  beginning  of 
the  third  century  B.C.,  according  to  Schiirer,  The  Jewish  People  in  the 
Time  of  Christ,  2.  i.  355. 

^  See  Pirqe  Aboth,  2. 


6  THE    INTERPRETATION    OF   THE   BIBLE 

great  authority,  and  in  which  the  voice  of  a  prophet  was 
not  to  be  heard. 

From  the  institution  of  a  legal  form  of  religion  under 
Ezra  and  Nehemiah,  we  must  pass  on  to  the  uprising  under 
the  Maccabees  two  hundred  and  sixty-six  years  later  before 
we  have  another  opportunity  to  study  the  inner  life  of  the 
Jewish  people  and  to  take  the  measure  of  the  new  forces 
that  had  been  set  in  operation  by  the  cup-bearer  of  Arta- 
xerxes  and  the  scribe  of  the  house  of  Aaron. ^ 

The  struggle  of  the  IMaccabees  was  distinctly  religious. 
It  was  a  war  waged  for  the  law  and  the  sanctuary  (i  jNIacc. 
6  :  59).  The  men  who  led  in  it  did  not  seek  for  poHtical 
independence,  but  only  for  freedom  to  observe  their  own 
religious  laws  in  their  own  way.  At  the  outbreak  of  this 
desperate  conflict  a  thousand  men  and  women  of  the  Jews 
suffered  death  rather  than  defend  themselves  on  the 
Sabbath  (i  Mace.  2  :  67).  And  yet  many  of  the  people 
soon  fell  away  to  the  enemy,  caring  more  for  life  and 
comfort  than  for  their  ancestral  worship  (i  Mace.  2  :  44). 
Furthermore,  there  had  long  been  Jews,  especially  of  the 
aristocratic  priestly  families,  who  had  been  favorable  to 
Greek  civilization.^  During  the  struggle  of  the  Maccabean 
period  these  men  became  more  pronounced  in  their  liberal 
tendencies,  and  consequently  at  the  same  time  more 
opposed  to  the  stricter  Jews  (the  chasidim).  Under  the 
name  of  Sadducees  they  played  an  important  role  until  the 

*  A  suggestive  glimpse  of  earlier  date  is  afforded  by  i  Chron.  2  :  55, 
from  which  it  appears  that  there  were  families  or  "guilds"  (Weber)  of 
scribes  as  early  as  the  date  of  this  book;  that  is,  shortly  after  t,2)Z  c.c. 
(Driver). 

^  See  Schiirer,  Jewish  People,  i.  i.  194-199. 


CLASSICAL    JEWISH   INTERPRETATION  7 

destruction  of  Jerusalem,  which  was  also  their  own  de- 
struction as  a  party.  But  the  men  who  fought  the  battles 
and  won  the  victories  over  the  Syrian  generals  put  the 
strict  observance  of  the  law  above  all  other  things.  They 
were  the  true  descendants  of  those  people  who  in  the  days 
of  Ezra  had  entered  into  a  solemn  covenant  to  keep  all  the 
statutes  of  the  Lord.  Their  ultimate  triumph  and  the 
establishment  of  the  Hasmonean  dynasty  (completed  in 
142  B.C.)  are  evidence  that  the  cultivation  of  the  law,  how- 
ever erroneous  its  interpretation  may  have  been,  was  at 
least  not  devoid  of  power  over  the  wills  and  hearts  of  men. 
In  our  introductory  survey  we  may  pass  on  at  once  from 
the  Maccabean  uprising  to  Hillel,  who,  according  to  the 
Talmud,^  flourished  a  hundred  years  before  the  destruc- 
tion of  the  temple.^  In  him  and  in  his  scarcely  less  famous 
contemporary  Schammai,  whose  work  may  be  dated  in 
round  numbers  four  hundred  years  after  Ezra,  we  have 
teachers  —  perhaps  the  first  —  who  are  to  be  reckoned 
among  the  makers  of  the  classic  Jewish  literature  of  inter- 
pretation. It  is  true,  their  immediate  instructors,  Sche- 
maja  and  Abtalion,  are  called  in  the  Talmud  great  inter- 
preters,^ and  a  line  of  eminent  predecessors  can  be  followed 

'  See  Schiirer,  Jewish  People,  2.  i.  357. 

^  "  Hillel  had  80  disciples,  of  whom  30  were  worthy,  as  Moses,  that  the 
Shekinah  should  rest  upon  them;  30,  that  the  sun  should  stand  still  for 
them,  as  for  Joshua;  and  20  were  of  medium  capacity.  The  least  was 
Jonathan  ben  Zakkai ;  the  greatest  Jonathan  ben  Uzziel,  whose  fire  in 
the  study  of  the  Torah  burnt  up  the  birds  that  flew  over  him."  See 
Taylor,  Pirqe  Aboth,  pp.  20-21. 

^  See  Bacher,  Die  Agada  der  Tannaiten,  i.  4.  This  work  and  Die 
Agada  der  Amoraim  are  frequently  cited  in  this  chapter  as  source-books 
for  the  teaching  of  the  rabbis. 


8  THE    INTERPRETATION    OF   THE    BIBLE 

back  to  the  middle  of  the  second  century  before  Christ,* 
yet  their  combined  contributions  to  the  Talmud,  at  least 
under  their  own  names,  is  very  slight.^  It  is  plain  that  the 
times  preceding  Hillel  had  not  been  lacking  in  authoritative 
Scripture  interpreters,  for  he  is  credited  with  having  made 
a  collection  of  halachoth^  (ordinances  to  be  observed), 
and  some  of  these,  as,  for  example,  those  concerning  the 
Sabbath,  had  probably  been  in  force  many  generations. 
The  two  centuries  following  the  era  of  Hillel,  or,  more 
exactly,  the  four  generations  between  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem  and  the  death  of  Juda  the  Patriarch,  a  descend- 
ant of  Hillel  (192  A.D.),''  witnessed  the  production  of  a 
number  of  very  important  works,  chief  of  which  were  the 
Aramaic  translations  or  paraphrases  (targums)  of  Onkelos 
and  Jonathan,  the  Mishna,  Mechilta,  Siphra,  and  Siphre.^ 
The  Targums  reflect  the  religious  views  of  the  times  in 
which  they  originated,  and  are  valuable  for  the  light  which 
they  throw  on  the  theology  of  the   Jews  and  on  their 

^  See  Schiirer,  Jeivish  People,  2.  i.  357. 

^  Bacher,  op.  cit.,  1.  15-16,  points  out  that  it  was  only  after  the  destruc- 
tion of  Jerusalem  that  special  effort  seems  to  have  been  made  to  preserve 
with  the  traditional  teaching  the  names  of  its  authors. 

^  See  Zunz,  op.  cit.,  p.  45.  Every  interpretation  which  was  not  halachah 
was  called  agada  or  haggada.  The  Mishna  is  almost  exclusively  made  up 
of  halachoth,  while  the  Gemara  contains  a  large  amount  of  agadoth.  The 
halacha  was  likened  to  an  iron  fortification  around  Israel ;  the  agada  to  a 
labyrinth  of  flowery  paths  within  this  fortification.  Karpcles,  Ceschichte 
der  jiidischen  Literatur,  p.  152. 

*  Schiirer,  Jewish  People,  i.  i.  129. 

'  Onkelos  wrote  about  50  a.d.  (Zunz,  op.  cit.,  p.  62),  Jonathan  a  little 
later.  Schiirer,  Jewish  People,  i.  i.  157-158,  following  Geiger,  puts  these 
Targums  in  the  third  or  fourth  century,  but  thinks  the  material  is  largely 
as  old  as  the  lime  of  the  apostles.     The  Mishna  was  completed  by  Juda 


CLASSICAL   JEWISH   INTERPRETATION  9 

method  of  interpretation.  The  Mishna  is  the  codification 
of  the  oral  law;  Mechilta,  Siphra,  and  Siphre  are  the 
earhest  commentaries  —  Mechilta  on  a  part  of  Exodus, 
Siphra  on  Leviticus,  and  Siphre  on  Numbers  and  Deuter- 
onomy. 

In  the  three  centuries  after  the  death  of  Juda  the 
Patriarch,  the  Mishna  expanded  into  the  Talmud,  or  rather 
into  two  Talmuds  —  one,  the  Palestinian,  compiled  at  Ti- 
berias on  the  Lake  of  Gahlee,  and  the  other,  the  Baby- 
lonian, compiled  at  Sura.*  The  latter,  called  the  "sea," 
is  about  four  times  as  large  as  the  former.  The  Talmud, 
though  based  on  the  Mishna  and  professing  to  be  its 
completion  (Gemara),  is  extremely  miscellaneous  and  en- 
cyclopedic in  character.  It  refers  to  about  five  hundred 
authorities,  contains  some  ten  thousand  ordinances,  and 
forms  a  codex  by  the  side  of  which  all  other  codexes  are 
LilHputian.^ 

To  the  same  period  in  which  the  Talmud  was  committed 
to  writing  belongs  the  Tosefta,  a  work  that  supplements 
the  Mishna  (put  by  Weber  at  the  end  of  the  fourth  cen- 
tury), and    the   Bereshith  Rabba,   a   catena  of   rabbinic 


the  Patriarch,  who  died  192  A.D.  Mechilta,  Siphra,  and  Siphre,  which, 
according  to  Zunz,  reflect  the  older  Midrash,  are  put  by  Weber  {Jiidische 
Theologie,  pp.  xxv-xxvii)  in  the  third  century. 

'  Weber,  Jiidische  Theologie,  p.  xxxii,  puts  the  completion  of  the 
Jerusalem  Talmud  about  400  a.d.,  the  Babylonian  about  500  A.D. 
Schlirer,  Jewish  People,  i.  i.  1 19-163,  puts  the  Jerusalem  Talmud  in  the 
period  200-400  A.D.,  and  the  Babylonian  Talmud  in  the  period  400- 
600  A.D.  Schiller-Szinessy  in  Ency.  Brit.,  article  "  Talmud,"  holds  that 
neither  Talmud  was  written  before  the  close  of  the  sixth  century. 

^  See  Delitzsch,  Judisches  Handwerkerlehen,  p.  35. 


lO  THE   INTERPRETATION   OF  THE   BIBLE 

opinions  on  the  book  of  Genesis  (sixth  century,  according 
to  Zunz). 

The  writings  which  have  now  been  enumerated  may 
perhaps  be  allowed  to  include  all  the  productions,  or  all 
that  are  of  primary  importance,  constituting  what  I  have 
called  the  classical  Jewish  literature  of  interpretation.* 

From  this  preliminary  survey  of  the  field  we  proceed 
now  to  consider  certain  facts  of  a  comprehensive  character 
that  condition  all  Jewish  interpretation  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. And  we  note,  in  the  first  place,  that  there  was  an 
oral  law  of  immemorial  standing  and  of  great  authority 
before  the  period  of  the  earliest  known  teachers.  It  is 
impossible  to  fix  the  origin  or  determine  the  exact  extent 
of  this  law.  That  it  goes  back  through  the  time  of  the 
Sopherim  ^  as  far  as  Ezra  is  altogether  probable.  The 
state  of  dependence  upon  heathen  rulers,  and  the  influ- 
ence of  the  Exile,  to  mention  no  other  facts,  made  the  rise 
of  an  oral  law  natural.  Early  Jewish  opinion  attributed 
this  law  to  Moses.  We  read  in  Pirqe  Abolh  that  Moses 
received  the  oral  law  from  Sinai,  that  he  delivered  it  to 
Joshua,  Joshua  to  the  Elders,  the  Elders  to  the  Prophets, 
and  these  to  the  men  of  the  Great  Synagogue.^  Now  this 
attempt  to  derive  the  oral  law  from  Moses  is  clear  evidence 

*  There  are  other  writings  which  may  well  contain  very  ancient  mate- 
rial, as  the  Pesikta  of  Rab  Kahana,  which  Theodor  (Jewish  Encyclopadia, 
article"  Midrash")  classes  with  ^frf 5// /7/j  Rabba,  and  the  Tanchiima,  the 
oldest  connected  Midrash  on  the  Pentateuch. 

^  A  designation  of  the  teachers  from  Ezra  to  Simon  the  Just.  The 
period  of  the  Tannaites  extends  from  Hillel  to  about  200  a.d.,  and  the 
subsequent  j>criod  to  about  500  A.D.  is  called  the  period  of  the  Amoraim. 

'  See  Babylonian  Talmud,  Fourth  Order,  Ninth  Tractate.     A  Roman 


CLASSICAL    JEWISH    INTERPRETATION  n 

that  this  law  was  felt  to  be  more  or  less  unlike  the  written 
law.  Had  it  been  self-evident  that  the  oral  law  was  in- 
volved in  the  written,  and  so  essentially  identical  with  it, 
this  tradition  that  it  was  given  to  Moses  on  Sinai  would 
have  had  no  ground  of  existence.  And  it  would  also  have 
been  unnecessary  for  the  rabbis  to  assert  again  and  again, 
generation  after  generation,  that  the  oral  law  was  of  the 
same  value  as  the  written,  or  even  of  greater  value.^  This 
assertion  and  the  tradition  both  imply  a  wide  and  manifest 
dissimilarity  between  the  two  laws.  It  is  well  known  that 
one  of  the  distinguishing  marks  of  the  Sadducees  was  their 
rejection  of  the  traditional  law. 

If  now  the  unwritten  law  was  supposed  to  have  been 
derived  from  Moses,  it  was  natural  that  it  was  believed  to 
be  in  harmony  with  the  Pentateuch.  It  became,  therefore, 
one  of  the  great  tasks  of  the  scribes  to  prove  that  the  oral 
law  was  based  on  the  Scripture.^  Most  of  it  was  thought 
to  be  proved  out  of  the  law,^  and  that  which  could  not  be 
thus  proved  was  nevertheless  declared  to  stand  on  the 
authority  of  the  teachers  who  had  transmitted  it  from 
the  first.  Thus  the  interpretation  of  the  Pentateuch  was 
hampered  by  the  existence  of  a  sacred  oral  law,  even  as,  in 
later  times  in  the  Christian  Church,  the  interpretation  of 

officer  is  said  to  have  asked  Hillel  how  many  laws  the  Jews  had,  and  he 
replied,  "two  —  an  oral  and  a  written"  (see  Bacher,  Agada  der  Tannaiten, 
I.  82). 

*  See  Weber,  Jiidische  Theologie,  p.  105;  Karpeles,  Geschichte  der 
judischen  Liter atur,  pp.  153-154. 

^  See  Weber,  Jiidische  Theologie,  p.  125. 

'  See  Strack,  Einleitung  in  den  Thalmud,  p.  98 ;  Mielziner,  Introduc- 
tion to  the  Talmud,  pp.  120-121. 


12  THE   INTERPRETATION   OF   THE    BIBLE 

Scripture  has  been  constantly  and  seriously  hampered  by 
the  acceptance  of  an  authoritative  tradition  (Roman  Catho- 
lic Church),  or,  none  the  less  effectually,  by  the  sway  of  a 
system  of  theology  which  has  long  enjoyed  ecclesiastic 
approval  (Protestant  as  well  as  Roman  CathoHc  Church). 
Again,  Jewish  interpretation,  not  only  of  the  Law,  but  also 
of  the  Prophets,  was  conditioned  by  the  belief  that  the  law 
was  the  absolute  and  perfect  revelation  of  God.  The 
rabbis  held  that  this  belief  was  justified  by  the  Pentateuch 
itself.  Thus  Moses  was  thought  to  have  proclaimed  it 
when  he  said  of  the  commandment,  "It  is  not  in  heaven," 
for  he  thereby  taught  that  nothing  pertaining  to  the  law 
had  been  left  in  heaven ;  in  other  words,  that  it  was  in 
itself  the  perfect  revelation  of  God's  will.*  As  such  it  was 
one  of  the  seven  things  which  were  created  before  the  world." 
Jonathan  ben  Zakkai  declared  that  the  very  purpose  for 
which  man  was  created  was  that  he  might  learn  the  law,^ 
and  the  Babylonian  Talmud  hands  down  a  saying  of 
Simon  ben  Jokkai  (second  century)  that  God  gave  three 
good  gifts  to  Israel  —  the  law,  the  promised  land,  and  the 
world  to  come.^  It  was  because  of  this  conception  of  the 
absoluteness  of  the  law  that  Akiba  (cir.  50-132  a.d.), 
the  greatest  of  the  Tannaite  scholars,  regarded  all  the 
details  of  it  as  of  equal  value.^    This  conception  of  the 

'  See  Weber,  Jiidische  Theologie,  p.  i8. 

^  The  other  six  were  repentance,  paradise,  hell,  the  throne  of  glory,  the 
temple,  and  the  name  of  the  Messiah.  See  Taylor,  Pirqc  Aboth,  p.  104; 
Winter  and  Wiinsche,  Die  jiidische  Lileratiir,  Tract  Pesachim. 

'  See  Bacher,  Agnda  der  Tannaiten,  i.  29. 

*  See  Schwab,  Le  Talmud,  p.  236. 

^  See  Bacher,  op.  oil.,  i.  310. 


CLASSICAL    JEWISH   INTERPRETATION  13 

Law  caused  the  other  divisions  of  the  Old  Testament  — 
Hagiographa  and  Prophets  —  to  be  relatively  overlooked. 
It  was  impossible  to  give  them  due  regard  when  they  were 
ranked  as  imperfect  by  the  side  of  the  Law. 

With  this  belief  in  the  absoluteness  of  the  revelation  of 
the  law,  there  was  coupled  a  belief  in  the  uniquely  super- 
natural character  of  its  origin.  Probably  this  belief  con- 
cerned at  first  only  the  Decalogue/  but  it  was  early  trans- 
ferred to  the  entire  Pentateuch.  We  read  in  the  Talmud 
that  all  the  ten  words  were  spoken  superhumanly  with  a 
single  utterance,  and  even  all  the  words  in  the  Torah  were 
spoken  with  a  single  word.^  Moses  wrote  the  entire 
Pentateuch,  even  the  description  of  his  own  death,  at  the 
dictation  of  God,  as  Baruch  wrote  at  the  dictation  of 
Jeremiah.^  In  comparison  with  the  law  thus  super- 
humanly produced,  the  writings  of  prophets  and  psalmists 
were  thought  to  have  only  a  secondary  degree  of  inspira- 
tion.'* The  proper  medicine  for  the  soul,  that  alone  which 
gives  life  to  the  world,  is  the  Law.  In  the  parable  of  Simon 
ben  Jokkai  it  is  the  Torah,  not  the  Scriptures  as  a  whole, 
which  is  the  daughter  of  God,  whose  dwelling  is  God's 
dwelling,  and  an  insult  to  whom  is  as  an  insult  to  God  in 
His  heavenly  habitation.^  The  tenor  of  these  statements 
regarding  the  unique  relation  of  God  to  the  law  is  frequently 
illustrated    in    classic    Jewish    literature.     That    such    a 


*  See  Schiirer,  Jeivish  People,  2.  i.  307. 
^  See  Taylor,  Pirqe  AbolJ:,  p.  109. 

^  See  Bacher,  Agada  der  Tannaiten,  2.  49. 

*  See  Weber,  JUdische  Theologie,  p.  82 ;  Schiirer,  op.  ciL,  2.  1.  311. 

'  See  Bacher,  Agada  der  Tannaiten,  2.  135  ;  Taylor,  Pirqe  Aboth,  p.  76. 


14  THE   INTERPRETATION  OF   THE    BIBLE 

dogma  as  this  must  have  deeply  influenced  all  Jewish 
interpretation  of  the  law  is  too  obvious  to  need 
proof. 

We  come  now  to  a  somewhat  closer  and  more  detailed 
view  of  our  subject.  And  in  the  first  place  we  shall 
endeavor  to  point  out  and  illustrate  the  elements  of  weak- 
ness in  classical  Jewish  interpretation.  The  business  of 
pointing  out  what  appear  to  be  the  elements  of  weakness  in 
any  literature  of  interpretation  is  simply  historical.  We 
are  not  concerned  to  defend  or  to  censure  the  rabbinic 
interpreters  whom  we  are  at  present  to  consider,  but  only 
to  present  the  characteristics  of  their  work. 

We  find  then,  in  the  first  place,  that  the  classic  Jewish 
interpreters  of  the  Old  Testament  were  ignorant  of  the 
origin  and  scope  of  the  various  sacred  writings.  They 
appear  to  have  given  but  little  thought  to  these  matters, — 
a  circumstance  which  throws  on  them  an  unfavorable 
light,  —  and  what  thought  they  did  give  to  them  led  chiefly 
to  erroneous  results.  The  entire  Pentateuch,  as  we  have 
seen,  was  attributed  to  Moses,  even  the  last  chapter  of 
Deuteronomy,  which  not  only  describes  his  death  and 
burial,  but  also  remarks  that  "no  man  knoweth  of  his 
sepulchre  unlo  this  day."  The  "book  of  the  covenant" 
(Ex.  24  :  7)  which  Moses  read  to  all  Israel  was,  accord- 
ing to  Jose  ben  Juda  *  (second  century),  the  book  of 
Genesis  and  the  book  of  Exodus  as  far  as  this  passage, 
while,  according  to  Juda  the  Patriarch  -  (cir.  135-220  a.d.), 
it  consisted  of  the  commandments  which  God  gave  to 

*  See  Bacher,  Agada  der  Tantwiteu,  2.  419. 
^  See  Bacher,  op.  cU.,  2.  477. 


CLASSICAL   JEWISH  INTERPRETATION  15 

Adam,  to  Noah  and  his  descendants,  to  Israel  in  Egypt, 
and  various  other  precepts. 

The  book  of  Esther  was  thought  to  have  been  com- 
posed by  Mordecai  and  indeed  composed  in  the  Holy 
Spirit,  for  it  is  said  in  chapter  2:22  that  the  plot  of 
Bigthan  and  Teresh,  two  of  the  king's  chamberlains,  to 
lay  hands  on  Ahasuerus,  became  known  to  Mordecai; 
and  obviously,  if  it  became  known  to  him,  it  must  have 
been  through  the  Spirit,  and  therefore  the  entire  book 
must  have  been  written  in  the  Spirit  and  must  be  in- 
spired.* 

Again,  Eleazar  of  Modaim  (first  and  second  centuries) 
ascribed  the  Hallel  Psalms  to  Deborah  and  Barak,  Joshua 
ben  Hananiah  {cir.  70-120  a.d.)  dated  them  from  the 
time  when  Joshua  faced  the  kings  of  Canaan,  and  Eliezer 
ben  Hyrcanos  (first  and  second  centuries)  put  them  back 
even  farther,  to  the  day  when  Israel  crossed  the  Red  Sea.^ 
Rabbi  Meir  (second  century),  the  distinguished  pupil  of 
Akiba,  ascribed  all  the  Psalms  to  David,  and  did  this  on 
the  ground  of  a  conjectural  reading  of  a  single  word  in 
an  early  footnote  to  Ps.  72.^  Some  later  teachers 
of  distinction  ascribed  some  of  the  Psalms  to  Abraham 
and  some  even  to  Adam !  * 

Of  these  citations  which  have  been  made,  some  illus- 
trate both  the  ignorance  of  Jewish  teachers  in  regard  to 
the  origin  of  various  sacred  writings  and  also  their  failure 

'  See  Bacher,  op.  cit.,  2.  49. 

"^  See  Bacher,  op.  cit.,  i.  155,  201. 

^  See  Bacher,  op.  cit.,  2.  49. 

*  See  Bacher,  Die  Agada  der  Amoraim,  i.  260. 


l6  THE    INTERPRETATION    OF   THE    BIBLE 

to  appreciate  the  scope  of  these  writings.  The  scope  of 
Genesis,  for  example,  can  hardly  have  been  understood 
when  it  was  regarded  as  part  of  the  "book  of  the  cove- 
nant" which  Closes  read  to  Israel  at  Sinai.  As  little  was 
the  scope  of  Job  known  to  men  who,  like  Juda  the  Patri- 
arch, said  that  if  the  book  contained  nothing  else  than  an 
account  of  the  sin  of  ike  generation  who  were  overtaken  by 
the  Flood,  and  their  punishment  (!)  it  would  have  fulfilled 
its  purpose.^  One  is  constantly  reminded  when  reading 
the  Talmud,  or  such  special  writings  as  Mechilta,  Siphra, 
and  Siphre,  that  their  authors  had  not  studied  the  separate 
books  of  the  Pentateuch  each  as  a  whole,  and  so  did  not 
interpret  the  details  in  the  light  of  the  entire  work.  And 
one  may  go  further  and  take  an  illustration  of  the  point 
under  discussion  from  the  fact  that  the  scope  of  the  Proph- 
ets as  a  division  of  the  Old  Testament,  or  the  scope  of 
the  Hagiographa,  was  not  understood.  These  writings 
were  regarded  merely  as  an  interpretation  of  the  Law,  not 
as  an  independent  revelation  which  is  often  fundamentally 
opposed  to  the  Law.^ 

One  may  say  that  the  classical  Jewish  interpretation 
of  the  Old  Testament  failed  to  measure  the  significance 
of  the  Prophets  as  completely  as  Philo  did.  We  cannot 
say  that  they  truly  apprehended  the  scope  of  the  Law,  but 
it  is  clear  that  their  failure  to  understand  the  Prophets 
was  still  more  complete. 

Another  widespreading  and  fruitful  source  of  weak- 
ness in  Jewish  interpretation  of  the  Old  Testament  was 

'  Sec  Bachcr,  Ac;(id<i  drr  Tditiiiiilrn,  2.  473. 
^  See  Weber,  Judisclie  Tlieologie,  p.  81. 


CLASSICAL   JEWISH   INTERPRETATION  17 

its  extreme  license  in  dealing  with  the  text.  This  license, 
as  regards  the  text  of  the  Law,  was  indeed  inconsistent 
with  the  dogma  that  the  Law  had  come  down  from  heaven, 
and  that  Moses  had  not  spoken  so  much  as  a  single  verse 
of  his  own  knowledge;  nevertheless  it  was  practised. 
There  was  already  in  the  Targums  a  notable  freedom  in 
deaUng  with  the  Old  Testament  text.  Thus,  for  example, 
Onkelos,  in  translating  the  Blessing  of  Jacob  (Gen.  49), 
departs  in  numerous  instances  from  the  literal  meaning 
of  the  Hebrew.  The  "hands  of  the  Mighty  One  of 
Jacob"  disappear  entirely  in  this  rendering  (vs.  24); 
instead  of  "Shiloh"  we  have  "Messiah"  (vs.  10);  the 
"ruler"  or  "lawgiver"  becomes  a  "  scholar"  or  scribe 
(vs.  10),  and  the  next  verse  speaks  of  those  who  occupy 
themselves  with  the  "teaching,"  that  is,  the  Law,  though 
the  Hebrew  text  has  no  suggestion  of  this ;  and  finally, 
in  the  verses  concerning  the  tribe  of  Dan  (16-17)  Onkelos 
twice  introduces  the  "  Philistines,"  though  the  original 
has  no  allusion  to  them. 

In  Jonathan's  Targum  of  the  Prophets  we  have  as  great 
or  even  greater  license  in  dealing  with  the  text.  Thus 
for  the  second  verse  of  Isaiah:  "Hear,  O  Heavens,  and 
give  ear,  O  earth,"  we  have  in  Jonathan:  — 

"Hear,  O  ye  heavens,  that  quaked  when  I  gave  my 
teaching  to  my  people,  and  listen,  O  earth,  that  trembled 
at  my  words."  The  fifteenth  verse  of  this  chapter  of 
Isaiah,  —  "When  ye  spread  forth  your  hands,  I  will  hide 
mine  eyes  from  you"  is  changed  into  this:  "When  the 
priests  spread  out  their  hands  to  pray  for  you,  I  will  take 
away  from  you  the  face  of  my  Shekinah."  This  intro- 
c 


1 8  THE   INTERPRETATION   OF  THE   BIBLE 

duction  of  the  **  priests  "  as  making  supplication  for  Israel, 
and  the  substitution  of  the  "face  of  the  Shekinah"  for  that 
of  God,  is  representative  of  a  large  class  of  changes  in 
Jonathan,  and  sufficiently  illustrates  his  freedom  in 
handling  the  text. 

Another  form  of  license  in  the  treatment  of  the  text  by 
Jewish  interpreters  was  the  habit  of  regarding  the  letters 
of  a  word  as  initials  of  a  like  number  ^  of  words  to  be  dis- 
covered.^ Bacher  gives  a  list  of  thirty-eight  instances  of 
this  species  of  so-called  interpretation  from  the  teachers 
of  the  Tannaite  period.^  The  most  distinguished  rabbis, 
like  Akiba,  Eleazar  of  Modaim,  Joshua  ben  Hananiah, 
and  EHczer  ben  Hyrcanos,  did  not  hesitate  to  make  use 
of  this  method.  As  we  should  expect,  there  were  the 
widest  differences  in  the  results  which  different  men 
obtained  from  the  same  word.  For,  obviously,  the  pro- 
cedure was  pure  guesswork.  It  seems  to  have  been 
resorted  to,  as  a  rule,  only  in  the  case  of  difficult  words, 
but  the  only  light  it  ever  shed  was  on  the  exegetical  in- 
capacity of  the  interpreters.  It  would  be  quite  super- 
fluous to  discuss  this  method  at  length,  and  it  may  be 
dismissed  with  one  or  two  illustrations.  Ismacl  ben 
Elisha  (first  and  second  centuries),  one  of  the  first  genera- 
tion of  teachers  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem,  re- 

'  Not  always  a  like  number.  See  illustration  from  Akiba  in  Bacher, 
Agada  der  Tannailen,  i.  312,  where  a  word  of  five  letters  is  resolved  into 
three  words. 

*  This  method  was  called  notarikon  (iip^iaj),  which  Jost  connects 
with  the  Latin  nolaritis,  a  rapid  writer.  See  Weber,  Jiidische  Theologie, 
p.  123. 

*  See  Bacher,  op.  cit.,  2.  378. 


CLASSICAL   JEWISH  INTERPRETATION  19 

solved  the  Hebrew  word  ethhen  in  Lev.  20  :  14  (jnnxi) 
into  two  parts,  the  second  of  which  was  the  Greek  word 
for  one  {ev)}  This  guess  was  apparently  determined 
by  a  similarity  of  sound  between  the  Hebrew  suffix  and 
the  Greek  numeral.  Another  illustration  is  from 
Ps.  77  :  21 : —  ^ 

"  Thou  leddest  thy  people  like  a  flock 
By  the  hand  of  Moses  and  Aaron." 

The  word  nachithah  (riTTl))  having  four  letters,  was 
taken  to  mean  wonder,  life,  sea,  and  law;  and  Weber 
gives  the  rabbinic  thought  as  follows:  "Thou  hast  worked 
a  wonder  for  thy  people;  thou  hast  given  them  life; 
thou  hast  divided  the  sea;  thou  hast  given  them  the 
law:'  2 

This  form  of  license  in  handling  the  text  of  Scripture 
was  equalled  by  another  called  gemalria  (yeco/JieTpia). 
This  was  in  use  as  early  as  the  close  of  the  first  century 
(see  Rev.  13  :  17,  18).  It  consisted  in  manipulating  the 
numerical  values  of  the  letters  of  any  word,  quite  inde- 
pendently of  its  proper  meaning.  Thus  by  adding  the 
values  of  the  several  letters  of  a  word,  striking  prophecies 
were  sometimes  discovered,  as  when,  on  the  basis  of  the 
word  radav  (-ni)  in  Gen.  42  :  2,  it  was  calculated  that 
the  Egyptian  bondage  was  to  last  210  years;  ^  or  as  when 
Nachman    ben    Isaac    (fourth    century)    deduced    from 

'  See  Bacher,  Agada  der  Tannaiten,  i.  255. 

^  See  Weber,  Judische  Theologie,  p.  124.  For  other  striking  examples 
of  notarikon,  see  Bacher,  op.  cit.,  i.  312;    2.  257. 

^  See  Taylor,  Pirqe  Aboth,  p.  62.     n  =  200,  T  =  4,  j  =  6. 


20  THE   INTERPRETATION   OF   THE    BIBLE 

the  word  deliverances  (nixsjin)  in  Ps.  78  :  20  the  result 
that  there  are  903  different  kinds  of  death  for  man.^ 
From  the  name  Salan  (fa'u?n),  which  has  the  numerical 
value  364,  it  was  inferred  that  Satan  had  power  over 
Israel  all  the  days  of  the  year  but  one,  that  is,  the 
great  day  of  atonement ; '  and  in  the  oldest  collection  of 
opinions  on  Genesis,  the  ladder  which  Jacob  saw  is  identi- 
fied with  Mt.  Sinai  because  the  two  words  have  the  same 
numerical  value.^ 

But  notarikon  and  gematria  were  not  the  only  ingenious 
devices  with  which  the  rabbis,  even  in  the  classical  age  of 
Jewish  interpretation,  sought  to  discover  hidden  mean- 
ings in  the  sacred  text.  The  thirty-two  rules  which 
Eliezer  laid  down  for  the  interpretation  of  Scripture, 
which  Schwab  reduces  to  thirteen,  are  all  merely  different 
ways  of  extracting  from  a  given  word  or  passage  some 
remote  sense, ^  but  our  point  is  sufficiently  illustrated  with- 
out going  further  in  this  direction."^  What  we  have  said 
shows  that   there   was  an  amazing  Hccnsc    in  the  treat- 

'  See  Berachoth,  1.8*. 

'  See  Weber,  Judisclte  Theologie,  p.  121. 

'  See  Taylor,  Pirqe  Aboth,  p.  62. 

*  See  Schiller-Szinessy  in  Ency.  Brit.,  article  "  Talmud";  Schwab,  Le 
Talmud,  Introd.,  p.  liii;  Mielziner,  Introduction  to  the  Talmud,  p.  123. 

'  A  common  means  of  reaching  an  uncommon  interpretation  of  a  word 
was  the  change  of  its  vowels.  For  a  list  of  such  instances,  see  Bacher, 
Die  Agada  der  Tannaiten,  2.  577.  A  notable  instance  is  seen  in  Pirqe 
Aboth,  6.  2.  In  Ex.  32 :  16,  where  we  read  that  the  writing  was  the  word 
of  God  "  graven  (charuth)  upon  the  tables,"  we  are  told  to  read  cherulh 
which  means /reerfow,  "for,"  the  interpreter  adds,  "thou  wilt  find  no 
freeman  but  him  who  is  occupied  in  learning  of  Torah."  See  Taylor, 
Pirqe  Aboth,  p.  100. 


CLASSICAL    JEWISH   INTERPRETATION  21 

ment  of  the  text  even  by  the  early  Jewish  interpre- 
ters/ 

A  third  element  of  weakness  in  the  classical  Jewish 
interpretation  of  the  Old  Testament  was  the  very  common 
failure  to  distinguish  between  the  essential  and  the  inci- 
dental. This  is  doubtless  to  be  seen  in  all  periods  of 
Christian  interpretation,  even  in  that  of  the  present  day, 
but  probably  no  considerable  body  of  the  literature  of 
interpretation  is  so  strikingly  pervaded  by  this  element 
as  is  that  which  we  are  now  considering.  It  matters 
little  to  what  part  of  the  Talmud  we  turn,  or  which  of  the 
commentaries  or  midrashim  one  consults :  on  every  page 
one  finds  abundant  evidence  of  this  failure  of  the  ancient 
interpreters  to  distinguish  between  that  which  is  central 
and  essential  in  a  passage  or  book  of  Scripture,  and  those 
things  which  are  of  quite  subordinate  value,  indeed,  in 
multitudes  of  cases,  of  no  independent  value  whatever. 

In  illustrating  this  point  we  turn  first  to  Mechilta,  the 
commentary  on  Exodus.  From  the  words  of  Ex.  19  :  2, 
"They  pitched  in  the  wilderness,"  that  is,  the  wilderness 
where  the  Law  was  given,  it  was  concluded  that  the  Law 
was  divinely  purposed  for  all  nations.  This  is  argued,  not 
from  the  scope  and  character  of  the  Law  itself,  but  from 
the  wholly  irrelevant  detail  that  it  was  given  to  Israel  in 
an  uninhabited  region.  In  Siphra,  the  commentary  on 
Leviticus,  the  statement  that  one  should  rise  up  before 
the  hoary  head  is  interpreted  to  mean  that  one  should  rise 
up  before  the  wise  man  only ;  and  thus  the  essential  truth 

'  This  element  became  still  more  pronounced  in  later  Jewish  writings^ 
as  in  the  Kabbala.     See  Zunz,  Gottesdienstliche  Vortrdge,  p.  157. 


22  THE   INTERPRETATION   OF  THE   BIBLE 

of  the  text  —  reverence  for  age  —  is  exchanged  for  some- 
thing quite  diiTercnt.  In  Gen.  47  :  29  Jacob's  request 
is  recorded,  that  he  should  not  be  buried  in  Egypt.  "Why 
not?"  it  is  asked  in  BcrcsJiith  Rabba.  Because,  says  the 
unnamed  author,  the  land  was  to  be  smitten  with  vermin, 
and  his  body  might  feel  them.  Another  rabbi  was  of  the 
opinion  that  Jacob  did  not  wish  to  be  buried  in  Egypt  lest 
the  Egyptians  should  make  an  idol  of  him. 

We  read  in  2  Kings  2:11  that  the  Prophets  Elijah  and 
Elisha  "talked  as  they  went,"  and  the  Talmud  asks  the 
weighty  question  what  they  were  talking  about.  One 
rabbi  said  that  they  talked  of  the  Shema  (Deut.  5  :  4-5), 
another  that  they  talked  of  the  creation  of  the  world.* 
The  schools  of  Hillcl  and  Schammai  discussed  the  ques- 
tion whether  the  heaven  was  created  before  the  earth  or 
the  earth  before  the  heaven.^  Later  a  rabbi  rose  up  and 
proved  that  both  were  created  at  the  same  time.^  The 
commentar}'  on  Exodus,  explaining  the  gracious  word  of 
the  Lord,  "I  am  thy  physician,"  says  that  it  is  the  words 
of  the  Torah  which  are  life.''  Thus  the  great  truth  of  the 
text  —  the  personal  relationship  of  God  to  the  soul  — 
is  lost  sight  of,  and  a  cold  servitude  to  the  letter  is  all  that 
is  left. 

As  illustrations  of  the  manner  in  which  the  Psalms  are 
employed  in  the  Talmud,  we  may  take  the  following  cases  : 
The  word  of  Ps.  i  :  2,  "And  in  his  law  doth  he  meditate 
day  and  night,"  is  cited  in  proof  that  the  ritual  shall  be 

'  .See  Berarhoth,  5. 

'  See  B.ichcr,  Die  At^aJa  Jer  Tanuailcn,  i.  17. 

'  See  Bacher,  op.  cil.,  i.  18. 

*  See  Weber,  Judisclie  Theologie,  p.  20. 


CLASSICAL   JEWISH   INTERPRETATION  23 

equally  divided  between  daylight  and  dark.*  The  ful- 
filment of  Ps.  4:  5,  "Commune  with  your  own  heart 
upon  your  bed  and  be  still,"  was  seen  in  Samuel  ben 
Nachman  (third  century),  who  repeated  the  Shema  until 
he  fell  asleep.^  "The  wicked  walk  on  every  side"  (or, 
round  about)  (Ps.  12  :  8)  is  cited  to  show  that  a  man  who 
prays  behind  a  synagogue  is  worthy  of  being  called  im- 
pious.' From  the  words  "The  law  of  the  Lord  is  per- 
fect" (Ps.  19  :  8)  the  Talmud  argues  that  it  must  be 
presented  in  a  perfect  manner;  that  is,  always  with  the 
same  number  of  benedictions  preceding  and  following  the 
reading  of  it.^ 

This  habit  of  the  Jewish  interpreter  to  fasten  on  some 
unimportant  detail  of  the  text  in  question  is  that  which, 
in  no  small  measure,  makes  the  Talmud  a  book  of  learned 
trifles,  a  book  in  which  the  mountain  labors  and  brings 
forth  only  a  mouse,  a  book  in  which,  as  has  been  said, 
you  shall  search  two  bushels  of  chaff  to  find  two  grains  of 
wheat. 

A  fourth  element  of  weakness  in  classic  Jewish  inter- 
pretation was  the  assumption  of  a  hidden  meaning  in 
the  words  of  Scripture.     This  was  by  no  means  universal.^ 

'  See  Berachoth,  1.8.  ^  See  Berachoth,  1.  10. 

^  See  Berachoth,  5.  i.  *  See  Berachoth,  5.  4. 

^  It  cannot  be  said,  in  general  terms,  that  the  Jews  saw  a  fourfold 
meaning  in  Scripture  corresponding  to  the  terms  peshat,  remez,  derush,  and 
sod  (see  Farrar,  History  of  Interpretation,  p.  95 ;  Schiirer,  Jewish  People, 
2.  1.  348,  who  ascribes  this  to  "later  Judaism") ;  nor  can  we  say  that  they 
found  in  all  Scripture  a  twofold  sense,  though  the  Talmud  speaks  of  at 
least  two  methods  of  interpretation,  and  though  a  mystic  interpretation 
of  Gen.  I  and  Ezek.  i  goes  back  to  early  times.  See  Mielziner,  Intro- 
ductio7i  to  the  Talmud,  pp.  11 7-1 18;  Briggs,  Biblical  Study,  pp.  300-301. 


24  THE   INTERPRETATION   OF   THE   BIBLE 

The  Talmud,  for  example,  illustrates  both  the  tendency 
to  go  behind  the  natural  sense  and  the  tendency  to  literal- 
ism. Joshua  ben  Hananiah,  to  take  a  single  case,  pre- 
ferred a  highly  artificial  interpretation,  but  his  contem- 
porary, Eleazar  of  Modaim,  held,  as  a  rule,  to  the  obvious 
meaning  of  the  text.^  But  the  leaven  of  the  notion  that 
there  is  a  hidden  meaning  in  Scripture  was  strong,  and 
most  of  the  illustrious  rabbis  w^ere  more  or  less  influenced 
by  it.  Jonathan  ben  Zakkai,  in  whose  exegesis  Bacher 
says  the  best  traits  of  the  Agada  are  to  be  found,  was  one 
of  the  founders  of  the  secret  teaching,  which  was  based  on 
the  first  chapter  of  Genesis  and  the  first  of  Ezekiel.^ 
Akiba,  who  died  as  a  martyr  in  the  revolution  under 
Bar-Kochab,  regarded  the  Song  of  Solomon — which  he 
interpreted  allegorically  —  as  the  most  holy  of  the  Hagi- 
ographa,  and  a  tradition  of  the  second  century  represents 
him  as  the  only  one  of  his  generation  who  entered  the 
garden  of  secret  teaching  and  came  forth  unharmed.^ 
Simon  ben  Jokkai  (second  century),  though,  hke  Ismael, 
he  held  that  the  Scripture  speaks  the  language  of  men, 
departed  not  infrequently  from  the  natural  sense,  as  when 
he  taught  that  the. bush  in  which  Aloses  saw  the  flame  of 
Are  was  a  symbol  of  Egypt,  or  when,  from  the  words  of 
Deut.  33  :  2  :  "  At  his  right  hand  was  a  fiery  law  for  them," 
he  taught  that  the  law  went  forth  from  the  right  hand  of 
God,  made  a  circuit  around  Israel,  and  returned  to  the 
left  hand  of  God,  who  then  graved  it  on  tables  of  stone.* 

*  See  Bacher,  Die  Agada  der  Tannaitcn,  i.  204. 
^  See  Bacher,  op.  cit.,  i.  30,  43. 

^  Sec  Bacher,  op.  cit.,  i.  318,  340. 

*  See  Bacher,  Die  Agada  der  Tanitaiten,  i.  117,  118. 


CLASSICAL    JEWISH    INTERPRETATION  25 

The  arbitrary  manipulation  of  the  separate  letters  of 
a  word,  which  has  already  been  discussed,  implied,  of 
course,  the  belief  in  a  hidden  sense.  This  was  implied, 
also,  when  the  interpreters  resorted  to  allegory,  a  point 
to  which  we  may  now  make  brief  reference.  Jewish 
interpreters  made  much  less  use  of  allegorical  interpreta- 
tion than  did  some  of  their  contemporaries  in  the  Christian 
Church.  It  was  resorted  to  in  exceptional  cases  where 
the  Scripture  itself  leads  the  way,  or  where  the  text  ap- 
peared to  be  especially  difficult.  Thus  the  vine  with  three 
branches  in  Gen.  40,  which  Joseph  interpreted  symboK- 
cally,  was  variously  explained  by  different  rabbis. 
Eliezer  ben  Hyrcanos  said  that  the  vine  was  humanity, 
and  the  three  branches  were  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob. 
Joshua  ben  Hananiah  held  that  the  vine  was  the  Law, 
and  the  three  branches  Moses,  Aaron,  and  Miriam. 
It  does  not  appear  that  these  scholars  denied  the  correct- 
ness of  Joseph's  interpretation,  but  they  evidently  thought 
that  the  symbols  which  the  butler  saw  had  other  mean- 
ings.^ It  seems  likely  that  the  allegorical  method  was 
most  frequently  applied  to  difficult  texts.  Such  is  the 
Song  of  Solomon,  which  Akiba  and  Resch  Lakisch  («>. 
200-275)  treated  as  an  allegory.  Rabbi  Ismael,  who  held 
firmly  to  the  natural  sense  of  the  sacred  text,  admitted 
that  there  were  three  passages  which  could  be  understood 
only  in  an  allegorical  manner  (viz.  Ex.  21  :  19;  22  :  3; 
Deut.  22  :  17).  In  these  cases  the  natural  sense  was 
set  aside  altogether.  In  like  manner  the  seeming  difficulty 
of  Ex.  17:11  probably  led  Eliezer  ben  Hyrcanos  to  adopt 

'  See  Bacher,  Die  Agada  der  Tannaiten,  i.  149. 


26  THE   INTERPRETATION   OF  THE   BIBLE 

an  allegorical  explanation.  He  said  that  the  holding  up 
of  Moses's  hand  signified  the  future  observance  of  his 
teaching,  and  the  sinking  of  his  hand  signified  the  neglect 
of  the  Law  in  Israel.^  We  need  not  dwell  longer  on  this 
point.  Though  the  tendency  to  go  behind  the  natural 
sense  of  the  text  was  strong  among  the  early  Jewish  in- 
terpreters, resort  to  allegory  was  not  characteristic  of 
their  method. 

Finally,  as  an  element  of  weakness  in  the  Jewish  inter- 
pretation of  the  Old  Testament,  we  must  count  its  highly 
conjectural  and  speculative  character,  an  element  which 
was  largely  responsible  for  the  uncertainty  of  Jewish 
exegesis.  A  few  illustrations  will  indicate  the  nature  and 
limits  of  this  feature  of  the  subject.  One  of  the  316 
controversies  between  the  school  of  Hillcl  and  the  school 
of  Schammai  was  that  concerning  the  order  of  the  resur- 
^rection.  The  school  of  Schammai,  arguing  from  Ezek.  37, 
held  that  the  order  would  be  the  reverse  of  the  order  of 
nature,  while  the  school  of  Hillel,  arguing  from  Job  40  :  10, 
held  that  in  the  resurrection  man  would  be  developed 
from  less  to  more  as  in  his  earthly  origin.'  But  neither  of 
these  passages  of  Scripture  can  reasonably  be  said  to  refer 
to  the  order  of  the  resurrection,  and  one  does  not  even 
touch  the  general  subject  at  all.  Again,  Ex.  24  :  9  tells 
how  Aaron,  Nadab,  and  Abihu  with  seventy  elders  went 
up  to  Moses  on  the  mount.  Only  three  names  arc  given, 
the  elders  not  being  personally  designated.  This  was  to 
indicate,  says  the  Talmud,  that  whenever  there  should  be 

'  See  Bacher,  Die  Agada  der  Tannailen,  i.  loS. 
*  See  Bacher,  Die  Agada  der  Tannailen,  i.  19. 


CLASSICAL   JEWISH   INTERPRETATION  27 

in  Israel  a  court  of  three  men,  it  would  have  equal  honor 
with  the  court  of  Moses  himself  —  a  very  important  con- 
clusion, but  resting  on  a  wholly  conjectural  foundation. 

In  Prov.  6:2,  which  speaks  of  the  commandment  of 
the  father  and  the  law  of  the  mother,  it  is  said :  — 

"When  thou  walkest,  it  shall  lead  thee; 
When  thou  sleepest,  it  shall  watch  over  thee; 
And  when  thou  awakest,  it  shall  talk  with  thee." 

Here  is  the  interpretation  of  it  by  Josua  ben  Qisma :  The 
first  line  refers  to  the  present  world,  the  second  to  the 
grave,  and  the  third  to  the  world  which  is  to  come/  It 
is  obvious  that  the  interpreter  found  a  suggestion  of  death 
in  the  word  "sleepest"  and  of  the  future  world  in  the  word 
"awakest."  Another  representative  case  is  furnished  by 
Pirqe  Aboth,  3,  9.  "When  ten  sit  and  are  occupied 
with  words  of  the  Torah,  the  Shekinah  is  among  them, 
for  it  is  said,  '  God  standeth  in  the  congregation  of  the 
mighty.'"  The  proof  that  ten  are  a  "congregation"  was 
found  in  the  fact  that  this  term  was  applied  to  the  twelve 
spies  when  Caleb  and  Joshua  were  absent.^  Thus  the 
wholly  irrelevant  circumstance  that  the  word  "congrega- 
tion" was  once  used  of  a  company  of  ten  men  is  the  basis 
of  the  teaching  that  when  ten  men  are  engaged  in  studying 
the  law,  the  Shekinah  is  with  them.^ 


'  See  Taylor,  Pirqe  Aboth,  p.  103. 

^  See  Taylor,  Pirqe  Aboth,  p.  46. 

'  Resch  Lakisch  said  that  Shinar  (Gen.  11:2)  was  so  called  because  the 
dead  of  the  Deluge  were  there  cast  down  {scheninaron)  {Berachoth,  4:  i). 
In  the  Babylonian  Talmud  {Berachoth,  9 :  9)  the  evil  desire  is  said  to  re- 


28  THE   INTERPRETATION   OF   THE    BIBLE 

Finally,  it  is  taught  in  the  Tosefta  (Tract  Joma)  that 
the  sin  of  one  who  has  profaned  the  name  of  God  may  be 
partly  atoned  for  by  repentance,  by  the  Day  of  Atonement, 
and  by  the  sufferings  of  life,  but  not  wholly.  Only  three 
quarters  of  the  sin  can  thus  be  covered.  The  remaining 
quarter  is  atoned  for  by  the  day  of  death,  as  is  written  in 
Jer.  22  :  14:  "This  iniquity  shall  not  be  purged  from  you 
until  ye  die."  "This  passage,"  it  is  said,  "teaches  that 
the  day  of  death  completes  the  atonement."  But  it 
hardly  needs  to  be  pointed  out  at  present  that  the 
prophet  is  not  speaking  of  the  power  of  death  to  atone 
for  sin,  not  to  say  its  power  to  atone  for  just  one 
quarter  of  a  particular  sin,  but  that  he  simply  affirms 
in  a  rhetorical  manner  that  a  certain  iniquity  is  un- 
pardonable. 

This  element  of  Jewish  exegesis  may  be  yet  a  little 
further  illustrated.  Thus  in  the  fact  that  there  are 
six  hundred  and  thirteen  letters  in  the  Decalogue  was 
found  a  proof  that  the  oral  law  should  contain  six  hundred 
and  thirteen  commandments.^  Ground  for  the  prohibi- 
tion of  exactly  thirty-nine  kinds  of  labor  was  discovered  in 
the  fact  that  the  construction  of  the  Tabernacle  called  for 
thirty-nine  sorts  of  labor,  also  in  the  fact  that  the  word 
"work"  occurs  thirty-nine  times  in  the  Pentateuch.^ 
Jonathan  ben  Eliezer  (third  century)  said  that  there  were 
eighteen  benedictions  in  the  liturgy  because  of  the  eighteen 

semble  a  grain  of  wheat  (nan)  because  in  Gen.  4 : 7,  when  it  is  said  to 
couch  at  the  door,  the  word  PNBn  is  used,  and  the  two  words  are  closely 
similar. 

'  See  Taylor,  Pirqe  Aboth,  p.  108.  '  See  Schabbath. 


CLASSICAL   JEWISH    INTERPRETATION  29 

times  repeated  saying  in  Exodus,  "as  the  Eternal  com- 
manded," ^  while  Rabbi  Levi  II  (third  century)  taught  that 
it  was  because  the  sacred  name  occurs  eighteen  times  in 
Ps.  29.^ 

Such  was  the  element  in  Jewish  interpretation  which 
we  have  called  conjectural  and  speculative.  If  it  ever  led 
to  the  truth,  it  was  by  pure  accident.  It  was  as  unscien- 
tific as  the  manipulation  of  the  letters  of  a  word  by 
notarikon  and  ge^natria. 

It  remains  now  to  speak  of  the  elements  of  strength  in 
Jewish,  interpretation,  for  such  elements  were  manifestly 
present.  There  were,  in  the  first  place,  some  sound  prin- 
ciples of  exegesis.  The  seven  ^  rules  of  Hillel,  though  not 
fundamental  for  the  determination  of  the  sense  of  the  text, 
were  good  as  far  as  they  went.  They  enunciated  great 
truths,  and  had  they  been  consistently  applied  to  the  in- 
terpretation of  the  Old  Testament,  the  result  would  have 
been  much  better  than  what  the  Talmud  and  other  early 
writings  offer  us.  Some  of  these  principles,  as  that  a 
word  must  be  explained  in  the  light  of  its  context,  are 
recognized  and  applied  in  all  scientific  interpretation. 
It  was  also  a  step  in  the  right  direction  when  the  teacher 
of  Akiba,  Nachum  of  Gimzo  (first  century),  drew  atten- 
tion to  the  significance  of  particles,   as  the  article  and 

^  See  Bacher,  Die  Agada  der  Amoraim,  i.  64. 

'  See  Bcrachoth,  4.  3. 

'  These  were  increased  to  13,  perhaps  by  Ismael.  They  are  found  in 
the  prayer-book  of  the  Jews,  and  were  repeated  in  the  daily  prayer  (see 
Weber,  Jildische  Theologie,  p.  109).  These  rules  of  Hillel  are  discussed  in 
detail  by  Mielziner,  Iniroduciion  to  tJie  Talmiid,  p.  123  ff.,  and  by  Weber, 
op.  cit.,  pp.  109-118. 


30  THE   INTERPRETATION    OF  THE   BIBLE 

adverbs,  even  though  he  pressed  the  point  to  extremes.' 
Again  it  was  a  great  utterance  of  Ismael  that  Scripture 
speaks  the  language  of  the  children  of  men^;  that  is,  that 
Scripture  is  to  be  read  and  interpreted  as  other  books. 
Thus,  he  argued,  when  the  Lord  said  to  Joshua:  "This 
book  of  the  law  shall  not  depart  out  of  thy  mouth  and 
thou  shalt  search  in  it  day  and  night,"  that  is  not  to  be 
taken  literally,  for  then  all  other  activities  of  life  would  be 
excluded.  We  cannot  say  that  this  principle  of  Ismael 
was  very  widely  or  intelligently  held  by  the  rabbis,  but  its 
recognition  and  even  partial  application  by  this  teacher 
stamps  him  as  one  of  the  most  illustrious  interpreters  of 
the  early  centuries. 

But  far  more  important  than  this  acquaintance  with 
certain  sound  principles  of  exegesis,  considered  as  an  cle- 
ment of  strength  in  the  Jewish  literature  of  Old  Testa- 
ment interpretation,  was  the  spiritual  insight  of  some  of  the 
rabbis.  It  is  this  that  constitutes  the  saving  salt  of  the 
Talmud  and  other  classic  memorials  of  rabbinic  activity. 
There  were  no  scientific  interpreters,  as  we  use  that  term 
at  present,  but  there  were  among  the  rabbis  men  who,  in 
spite  of  their  exegetical  deficiencies,  often  saw  into  the 
heart  of  Scripture.  It  is  only  fair  that  we  should  illustrate 
this  aspect  of  our  subject  as  fully  as  we  have  the  weakness 
of  Jewish  exegesis.  This  may  be  done  both  by  reference 
to  the  interpretation  of  individual  Scripture  verses  and 
by  the  maxims  handed  down  from  difl'erent  teachers,  for 

'  Thus  he  took  "n  in  Dcut.  34:  6  rcflcxivcly,  and  hence  made  Moses 
bury  himself!     See  Bacher,  Die  Agada  dcr  Tannaitoi,  i.  61-63,  248. 
'  See  Bacher,  op.  cit.,  1.  247. 


CLASSICAL   JEWISH   INTERPRETATION  31 

these  maxims,  though  not  connected  with  particular  texts, 
contain  in  most  cases  a  wisdom  derived  from  the  Scripture. 
They  are,  as  it  were,  the  residuum  from  long  and  deep 
meditation  on  the  Law  and  Prophets  of  Israel.  It  was 
Hillel  who  gave  as  a  free  rendering  of  Ps.  113:6-7  this 
sentiment  which  we  find  also  in  the  teaching  of  Jesus: 
"  My  humiliation  is  my  exaltation,  and  my  exaltation  my 
humihation."  ^  When  a  pupil  of  Jonathan  ben  Zakkai 
said  to  him,  weeping,  "Woe  to  us  because  of  the  destruc- 
tion of  the  place  of  offering"  (i.e.  the  temple),  the  master 
replied,  "Weep  not;  we  still  have  a  means  of  reconciha- 
tion ;  that  is,  the  practice  of  works  of  love,  for  it  is  writ- 
ten, I  desire  love  and  not  sacrifice."  ^  The  story  of 
King  Munbaz  contains  not  only  good  ethical  teaching, 
but  also  apt  use  of  Scripture.^  This  king  divided  all  his 
goods  among  the  poor.  His  relatives  sent  word  to  him, 
saying,  "Thy  ancestors  added  to  that  which  their  fore- 
fathers had  saved  up,  but  you  give  away  both  what  you 
and  your  fathers  possessed."  He  replied,  "My  fathers 
gathered  treasures  on  earth,  but  I  gather  treasures  in 
heaven,  as  is  written  in  Ps.  85:12:  'Righteousness  looks 
down  from  heaven.'  They  gathered  treasures  which 
yielded  no  fruit,  but  I  gather  such  as  bear  fruit,  as  is 
said  in  Is.  3  :  10:  'Say  of  the  righteous  that  it  shall  be 
well  with  him,  for  they  shall  eat  of  the  fruit  of  their 
doings.'     They  heaped  up  treasures  in  a  place  where  the 

*  See  Bacher,  Die  Agada  der  Tannaiten,  i.  8. 
^  See  Bacher,  op.  cit.,  i.  39. 

^  See  Tractate  Pea  in  Winter  and  Wiinsche,  Geschichte  der  jiidischen 
Literatur,  p.  188, 


32  THE    INTERPRETATION   OF   THE   BIBLE 

hand  had  power  over  them,  but  I  lay  them  up  in  a  place 
where  the  hand  has  no  power  over  them,  as  is  said  in 
Ps.  97:2:  '  Clouds  and  darkness  are  round  about  him, 
righteousness  and  judgment  are  the  foundation  of  his 
throne.'  They  gathered  gold  and  goods,  but  I  gather 
souls,  as  is  written  in  Prov.  11:30:  'He  that  is  wise 
winneth  souls.'" 

The  motto  of  Hillel,  "Be  of  the  disciples  of  Aaron,  lov- 
ing peace  and  pursuing  peace,  loving  mankind  and  bring- 
ing them  nigh  to  the  Torah,"  is  a  worthy  expression  of  deep 
principles  of  the  Pentateuch;^  and  his  rigid  opponent 
Schammai,  so  strict  in  the  observance  of  the  Law  that 
when  his  daughter  bore  a  child  on  the  day  of  the  Feast  of 
Tabernacles,  he  had  the  roof  over  the  bed  broken  through 
and  a  booth  of  green  branches  erected  that  the  child  might 
keep  the  feast  —  even  Schammai's  motto  contained  much 
wisdom  of  head  and  heart:  "Say  little,  do  much,  and 
receive  every  one  in  a  friendly  manner."  ^  Eliezer  ben 
Hyrcanos  had  this  motto:  "Let  the  honor  of  thy  neigh- 
bor be  as  dear  to  thee  as  thine  own;  be  not  easily  pro- 
voked ;  and  repent  the  day  before  thy  death."  When 
his  scholars  asked  him  whether  a  man  knew  beforehand 
the  day  of  his  death,  he  rc])lied :  "All  the  more  will  he 
repent ;  for  perhaps  he  will  die  on  the  next  day ;  thus  he 
repents  all  his  days."  ^  Of  ]\Ieir  ^  the  following  utterance 
has  been  preserved,  which,  as  he  attributed  it  to  God, 

'  See  Taylor,  Pirqe  Ahoth,  p.  21. 

'See  Karpcles,  Geschichte  der  jiidischcn  Lileralur,  p.  165. 
'  See  Bacher,  Die  Agada  der  Tannaiten,  i.  loi. 

^Called  in  Beraclwth,  2.  7,  "grand  homme,  saint  homme,  homme 
modeste."     See  Scliwab,  Le  Talmud,  op.  cit. 


CLASSICAL    JEWISH    INTERTRETATION  33 

may  be  taken  as  his  summing  up  of  the  teaching  of  Scrip- 
ture: "Purpose  with  thy  whole  heart  and  soul  to  know 
my  ways  and  zealously  to  wait  at  the  doors  of  my  teaching ; 
lay  up  my  teaching  in  thy  heart,  and  let  my  fear  be  before 
thy  eyes ;  keep  thy  mouth  from  every  sin,  purify  and 
cleanse  thyself  from  every  sin  and  transgression ;  then  will 
I  be  with  thee  at  all  times."  '  "  On  three  things  the  world 
stands,"  said  Simeon  ben  Gamaliel  II  (second  century), 
"on  judgment,  on  truth,  and  on  peace,"  ^  and  the  son  of 
Juda  the  Patriarch  was  in  the  habit  of  saying,  "Do  his 
will  as  if  it  were  thy  will,  that  he  may  do  thy  will  as  if  it 
were  his  will.  Annul  thy  will  before  his  will,  that  he  may 
annul  the  will  of  others  before  thy  will."  ^ 

These  bits  of  interpretation  and  these  summaries  of 
the  wisdom  of  men  who  fed  on  the  Scripture  are  sufficient 
to  illustrate  the  claim  that  the  most  considerable  element 
of  strength  in  the  classical  Jewish  hterature  of  Old  Testa- 
ment interpretation  is  the  deep  spiritual  insight  of  some  of 
the  rabbis.  That  literature,  as  a  whole,  is  pervaded  by 
a  deadly  literalism  and  an  unbounded  arbitrariness.  It 
is  literature  of  the  Pentateuch  rather  than  of  the  whole 
Old  Testament,  and  its  dominating  conception  even  of 
the  Law  to  which  it  is  so  largely  devoted  is  at  variance 
with  fundamental  moral  and  spiritual  principles  of  the 
Law  itself.  It  is  an  unparalleled  monument  to  the  religion 
of  strict  legahty,  and  therefore  as  an  interpretation  of  the 
Old  Testament  religion  in  its  entirety  it  is  a  monument  of 

'  See  Bacher,  Die  Agada  der  Tannaiten,  2.  12. 
^  See  Taylor,  Pirqe  Aboth,  p.  25. 
'  See  Taylor,  op.  cit.,  p.  29. 

D 


34  THE   INTERPRETATION   OF   THE    BIBLE 

pathetic  misinterpretation.  And  yet  it  enshrines  the 
names  of  a  considerable  number  of  teachers  who,  in  spite 
of  the  heavy  servitude  of  a  rehgion  of  the  letter  and  against 
the  weight  of  age-long  false  opinions  regarding  the  Scrip- 
ture, established  a  good  claim  to  our  grateful  remembrance 
by  their  fragments  of  exegetical  wisdom  and  still  more  by 
their  gift  of  spiritual  insight. 


CHAPTER  II 

PHILO    OF    ALEXANDRIA    AS    INTERPRETER    OF    THE    OLD 
TESTAMENT 

The  two  most  influential  Jewish  contemporaries  of 
Jesus  were  Saul  of  Tarsus  and  Philo  of  Alexandria.  Both 
were  Jews  of  the  Dispersion,  both  were  men  of  great  natural 
ability,  both  enjoyed  the  best  educational  advantages  of 
their  respective  lands.  The  former  became  a  Christian, 
and  did  more  than  any  other  of  his  generation,  not  only  for 
the  extension  of  the  Church,  but  also  for  the  determination 
of  its  theological  views;  the  latter,  so  far  as  we  know,^ 
had  no  acquaintance  with  Christianity,  and  yet,  through 
his  writings  and  especially  by  his  method  of  interpreting 
the  Old  Testament,  he  wielded  a  profound  influence  over 
the  leaders  of  the  Christian  Church  in  the  early  centuries. 

Both  Paul  and  Philo  were  animated,  though  not  with 
equal  intensity,  by  a  lofty  missionary  purpose.  One 
devoted  his  life  to  the  proclamation  of  the  Gospel  among 
all  nations,  the  other  labored  to  commend  the  Jewish 
rehgion  to  the  Greek  world.  The  master  of  Paul  was 
Jesus,  the  master  of  Philo  was  Moses. 

•The  tradition  recorded  by  Eusebius  {Church  History,  2.  17)  that 
Philo  became  acquainted  with  Peter  in  Rome  is  wholly  without  support 
and  is  almost  universally  rejected. 

35 


36  THE   INTERPRETATION   OF  THE   BIBLE 

Now  just  as  Paul  can  be  truly  estimated  only  when  he  is 
studied  in  the  light  of  this  animating  missionary  purpose, 
so  also  is  it  in  the  case  of  Philo.  To  understand  his  method 
of  interpretation  and  to  appreciate  its  significance  for  the 
history  of  Christianity,  it  is  needful,  first  of  all,  to  consider 
his  aim,  what  he  was  seeking  to  accomplish. 

Philo  was  an  heir  of  two  distinct  civilizations.  He  was 
a  Jew,  a  member  of  one  of  the  first  families  of  Alexandria,^ 
and  loyal  to  the  religion  of  his  fathers.  He  saw  in  Moses 
the  supreme  interpretation  of  the  will  of  God,"  a  man 
whose  ideas  regarding  the  creation  of  the  world  ''surpass 
the  power  of  speech  and  hearing,  being  too  great  and 
venerable  to  be  adapted  to  the  senses  of  any  mortal.'" 
The  Jewish  people  he  regarded  as  surpassing  all  others  in 
love  of  God,  and  they  seemed  to  him  to  have  received  the 
ofhces  of  priesthood  and  prophecy  on  behalf  of  all  man- 
kind.*    Philo  was  proud,  therefore,  of  his  Jewish  heritage. 

But  he  was  also  an  appreciative  heir  of  the  best  in  Greek 
civilization.     Greek  was  his  mother  tongue,  and,  next  to 

*  According  to  Josephus  (Antiq.  18.  8.  i ;  19.  5.  i ;  20.  5.  2)  Philo  was 
a  brother  of  Alexander  the  alabarch,  who  was  a  man  of  great  wealth,  a 
friend  of  the  Emperor  Claudius  and  steward  of  the  emperor's  mother 
Antonia.  Some  scholars,  e.g.,  Ewald  and  Zeller,  reject  the  statement  of 
Josephus,  and  on  the  basis  of  De  ratione  animalium,  i.  72,  suppose  Philo 
to  have  been  Alexander's  uncle.  But  Josephus  {Antiq.  20.  5.  2)  speaks 
of  a  son  of  Alexander  who  bore  the  same  name,  and  Schiirer  supposes  that 
the  passage  in  De  ratione  animalium  refers  to  the  son.  See  Jewish  Peo- 
ple, 2.  3.  323. 

*  See  De  praemiis  el  poenis,  9 ;  De  opificio  mundi,  2.  My  citations  are 
from  the  Lcipsic  edition  of  Philo,  1851. 

'  De  opificio  mundi,  i. 

*  De  Ahrahamo,  ig. 


PHILO  AS  INTERPRETER  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT    37 

the  Pentateuch,  Greek  literature  was  the  especial  "  pasture  " 
of  his  soul.  His  writings  abound  in  quotations  from  the 
classic  poets  and  the  great  philosophers.^  To  him  Plato 
was  the  man  of  "sweetest  voice,"  and  the  Pythagorean 
philosophers  were  a  "most  sacred  band."^  It  was  when 
looking  back  on  his  study  of  Greek  philosophy,  no  less  than 
upon  his  study  of  the  Pentateuch,  that  he  uttered  those 
memorable  words:  "I  appeared  to  be  raised  on  high  and 
ever  borne  along  by  a  certain  inspiration  of  the  soul,  and 
to  follow  the  sun  and  moon,  the  whole  heaven  and  the 
cosmos."  ^ 

Now  these  two  civilizations  which  with  almost  equal 
power  had  fascinated  the  soul  of  Philo  were,  for  him,  in 
their  highest  elements,  identical.  Greek  philosophy  was 
the  same  as  the  philosophy  of  Moses.  Heraclitus  and 
Pythagoras,  Plato  and  Aristotle,  had  derived  their  teach- 
ings from  the  Old  Testament.*  And  the  aim  of  Philo  was 
to  set  forth  and  illustrate  this  harmony  between  the  Jewish 
religion  and  classic  philosophy,  or,  ultimately,  it  was  to 
commend  the  Jewish  religion  to  the  educated  Greek  world. 
This  was  the  high  mission  to  which  he  felt  called,  the  pur- 
pose with  which  he  expounded  the  Hebrew  laws  in  the 
language  of  the  world's  culture  and  philosophy. 

'  Siegfried,  in  his  Philo  von  Alexandri'en  als  Ausleger  des  AT.,  i.  137, 
counts  sixty-four  classic  writers  from  whom  Philo  made  citations. 

^  Quod  omnis  prohus  liber,  2.  i. 

'  De  spec,  leguni,  3.  i. 

*  Legis  alleg.,  1.  33;  Quod  omnis  probus  liber,  8.  This  thought  that 
the  Greek  philosophers  had  borrowed  from  Moses  was  not  original  with 
Philo.  It  is  found  as  early  as  the  time  of  Aristobulus,  who  lived  about 
150  B.C.     See  Zeller,  Ceschichte  der  griech.  Phil.,  3.  2.  347. 


38  THE   INTERPRETATION   OF  THE   BIBLE 

The  way  for  Philo's  work  had  long  been  prepared  in  the 
translation  of  the  Old  Testament  into  Greek.  This  was 
his  forerunner  and  in  an  important  degree  the  basis  of  his 
labors.  His  own  knowledge  of  Hebrew  was  evidently 
slight/  for  his  writings  show  no  trace  of  a  literary  appre- 
ciation of  the  Old  Testament,  neither  does  he  seem  to  have 
been  aware  of  the  serious  imperfections  of  the  Greek  ver- 
sion. He  regarded  it  as  the  work  of  "hierophants  and 
prophets  to  whom  it  had  been  granted,  with  their  guileless 
minds,  to  go  along  with  the  most  pure  spirit  of  Moses."  ^ 
He  declared  that  they  agreed  in  the  employment  of  the 
same  nouns  and  verbs  as  though  an  invisible  prompter 
had  suggested  words  to  each  one.  Philo  attributed  the 
translation  of  the  law  to  King  Ptolemy  Philadelphus  (283- 
247  B.C.),  and  says  that  it  was  carried  out  by  men  sent  down 
from  Judea  by  the  high  priest.  It  was  made,  he  thought, 
on  the  island  of  Pharos,  where  stood  the  celebrated  light- 
house of  Alexandria,  and  he  says  that  down  to  his  own  day 
an  annual  festival  was  held  on  that  island,  participated  in 
both  by  Jews  and  Gentiles,  which,  with  thanksgiving  to 
God,  commemorated  the  work  of  the  translation  of  the 
law  —  "that  ancient  piece  of  beneficence  which  was 
always  young  and  fresh."  ^ 

This  account  is  mainly  free  from  those  marvellous 
details  which  we  find  in  Aristeas,*  in  Josephus,^  and  later 

'  See  Siegfried,  op.  at.,  i.  144. 

'  Vita  Mosis,  2.  7.  '  Ibid.,  2.  5-7. 

*  See  Schiirer,  Jewish  People,  2.  3.  306-312.  Swete  {Introduction  to 
the  O.  T.  in  Greek,  p.  12)  thinks  that  the  Alexandrian  tradition  which 
is  represented  in  Philo  may  have  been  originally  inde[)endent  of  the  letter 
of  Aristeas.  '  See  Antiq.,  12.  2. 


PHILO  AS  INTERPRETER  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT    39 

in  the  Church  Fathers/  and  doubtless  has  a  historical 
basis.  We  may  regard  it  as  evidence  that  the  Law  was 
done  into  Greek  at  Alexandria  in  the  reign  of  Ptolemy 
Philadelphus/  though  it  seems  more  probable  that  the 
initiative  was  taken  by  the  Jews  than  by  the  king.^  Of  the 
translation  of  other  parts  of  the  Old  Testament  little  is 
known  beyond  these  two  facts,  that  the  work  was  done  with 
varying  degrees  of  excellence  and  that  it  was  completed  in 
the  second  half  of  the  second  century  before  Christ.^ 
Thus  in  the  time  of  Philo  ^  the  Greek  version  of  the  Penta- 
teuch was  hallowed  by  an  usage  about  as  long  as  that  which 
was  enjoyed  by  our  King  James  Bible  (1611-1881  a.d.). 
Without  it  the  work  of  Philo  would  have  been  impossible. 
There  was  another  and  equally  important  preparation 
for  this  "greatest  of  uninspired  Jewish  writers  of  old." 
He  had  not  only  the  Hebrew  Scriptures  in  Greek,  but  he 

^  See,  e.g.,  Augustin,  De  civ.  dei,  18.  42. 

'  Frankel  (Ueber  den  Einfluss  der  paldstinischen  Exegese  auf  die 
alexandrinische  Hermeneutik)  extends  the  period  in  which  the  Penta- 
teuch was  translated  as  far  as  the  close  of  the  reign  of  Ptolemy  Philopator 
(204  B.C.). 

^  Comp.  Bulil,  Kanon  und  Text  des  A.T.,  p.  116. 

*  The  Prologue  of  Ben  Sirach,  about  130  B.C.,  makes  it  plain  that  the 
Law,  the  Prophets,  and  part  of  the  Hagiographa  had  been  translated. 
Swete  {Introduction  to  the  O.T.  in  Greek)  thinks  it  possible  that  some  of  the 
Hagiographa  may  have  been  translated  much  later.  See  Nestle,  article 
"  Septuagint,"  in  Hastings'  Bible  Dictionary ;  Volk's  article  in  the  Schaff- 
Herzog;  Kenyon,  Our  Bible  and  the  Ancient  Manuscripts,  and  Schiirer, 
Jewish  People,  2.  3.  159-168. 

^  The  only  tolerably  certain  date  of  Philo's  life  is  that  of  his  mission  to 
the  Roman  emperor  Caligula,  which  was  probably  in  the  winter  of  39-40 
A.D.  He  vras  then  an  elderly  man  (see  Legatio  ad  Caiuni,  i),  whence  is 
inferred  that  he  was  born  30-20  B.C.  (Zeller),  or  20-10  B.C.  (Schiirer). 


46  THE    INTERPRETATION   OF   THE   BIBLE 

had  ready  to  hand  a  recognized  principle  of  interpretation 
by  which,  as  elaborated  and  used  by  him,  he  was  able  to 
make  Moses  and  Plato  teach  the  same  doctrines.  This 
was  the  principle  of  allegorical  interpretation. 

The  Stoic  philosopher  Herachtus  (cir.  500  B.C.)  defined 
allegory  as  the  form  of  speech  which  says  one  thing,  but 
means  another.*  He  did  not  utterly  set  aside  the  literal 
meaning  of  texts  which  he  interpreted  allegorically,  but 
regarded  the  hidden  meaning  as  the  all-important  one. 
By  means  of  this  method  of  interpretation  the  Greek  philos- 
ophers explained  the  poems  of  Homer  and  Hesiod.  By 
its  aid  they  removed  from  the  text  all  contradictions  and 
whatever  seemed  to  them  unworthy  of  the  gods,  and 
derived  from  it  their  own  philosophical  views.  Thus  they 
harmonized  their  philosophy  with  their  sacred  poets. 
It  was  this  venerable  mode  of  handling  ancient  writings 
and  adapting  them  to  later  times  which  Philo  used  in  his 
great  endeavor  to  interpret  the  Jewish  religion  to  the  Greek 
world. 

It  is  well  known  that  Philo  was  not  the  first  to  put  an  alle- 
gorical interpretation  on  the  laws  of  Moses.  Aristobulus, 
who  also  was  a  Jewish  philosopher  and  lived  in  Egypt 
(150  B.C.),  was  put  by  Origen "  in  the  same  class  with 
Philo  as  an  allegorical  interpreter  of  the  Law ;  and  Pseudo- 
Aristeas,  whose  letter  to  his  brother  Philocrates  is  regarded 
by  Gfrorer  as  much  older  than  Philo  ^  and  which  Schiirer 

'  6  yap  dXXo  /u^v  dyopevwi'  rpdiroi,  ^repa  S^  u>v  \4yei  ffrifialvuv,  iiruvuixui 
dWrjyopia  KoXuTai. 

'  See  Contra  Celsum,  4.  51. 

*  See  his  Philo  und  die  fudisch-alexandrinische  Theosophie,  2.  61-71. 


PHILO  AS  INTERPRETER  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  41 

confidently  dates  about  200  B.C./  explained  the  law  alle- 
gorically.  Thus  he  said  that  the  unclean  birds,  whose  flesh 
was  prohibited  by  Moses  as  a  food,  signified  not  only  birds, 
but  also  violent  men,  and  that  the  passage  about  animals 
that  part  the  hoof  taught  that  the  Israelites  should  keep 
themselves  separate  from  the  wicked.^  In  the  Wisdom 
of  Solomon,  also,  which  was  probably  written  in  Egypt  in 
the  first  century  b.c.,^  we  find  an  occasional  allegorical 
interpretation,  as  when  the  pillar  of  cloud  and  the  pillar 
of  fire  are  said  to  have  been  manifestations  of  wisdom,* 
and  the  high  priest's  robe  is  regarded  as  a  symbol  of  the 
universe.^  Siegfried  held  that  allegorical  interpretation 
of  the  Old  Testament  was  everywhere  current  among  the 
Hellenists  in  the  first  century  before  Christ.*'  But  though 
Philo  was  not  the  first  to  read  the  Old  Testament  alle- 
gorically,  he  was  the  first  to  do  it  on  a  large  scale  and  with 
distinguished  abihty.  The  principle  long  recognized  and 
widely  current  was  given  its  most  conspicuous  illustration 
in  his  writings. 

There  is  yet  another  point  which  may  best  be  noticed 
here,  before  we  consider  somewhat  more  closely  Philo's 
interpretation  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  that  is  his  view 

'  See  Jewish  People,  2.  3.  310. 

^  See  Drummond,  Philo  Judaeus,  i.  239. 

'  See  Schurer,  Jewish  People,  2.  3.  230-237. 

*  Wisdom  of  Solomon,  10.  17. 

^Ibid.,  18.  24. 

'  On  the  relation  of  Philo  to  Palestinian  interpretation,  see  Ritter, 
Philo  ujtd  die  Halachah;  Lauterbach,  Philo's  Relation  to  the  Halakah, 
Jewish  Encyclopedia;  Edersheim,  Life  and  Times  of  Jesus  the  Messiah, 
vol.  2,  Appendix  2 ;  and  Frankel,  Einfluss  der  paldstinischen  Exegese 
auf  die  alexandrinische  Hermeneutik. 


42  THE    INTERPRETATION   OF  THE   BIBLE 

of  inspiration,  for  this  clearly  conditioned  the  results 
at  which  he  arrived.  Philo  nowhere  formally  discusses  the 
subject  of  inspiration,  nor  does  he  intimate  that  his  own  con- 
ception differed  from  that  of  his  fellow-believers.  It  had 
two  conspicuous  features.  First  and  most  important  of 
these  was  the  passivity  of  the  person  inspired.  Such  a 
person  was  thought  to  be  in  a  kind  of  trance  or  frenzy ;  all 
that  he  said  was  strange  to  himself;  he  was  merely  the 
sounding  instrument  of  God's  voice,  invisibly  struck  and 
moved  to  sound  by  him.*  The  other  conspicuous  element 
in  Philo's  view  of  inspiration  was  that  its  natural  result 
seemed  to  be  the  prediction  of  future  events.*  Thus 
Moses  became  inspired  at  the  Red  Sea  that  he  might 
foretell  what  was  soon  to  befall  the  Egyptians  and  Israel, 
and  shortly  before  his  death  he  became  inspired  and 
foretold  admirably  what  should  happen  to  himself  after 
his  death,  relating  how  he  died,  though  not  yet  having 
died,  how  he  was  buried  with  no  one  present,  plainly  not 
by  mortal  hands  but  by  immortal  powers,  and  how  the 
whole  nation  mourned  for  him  with  tears  a  whole  month  .^ 
As  a  consequence  of  the  complete  suppression  of  the 
personality  of  the  one  inspired,  all  his  words  were  wholly 
true  and  without  any  imperfection.  They  were  also  filled 
with  a  divine  and  infinite  significance.  This  was  most 
clearly  the  case  with  Moses,  whom  Philo  set  apart  by 

'  See  De  migratione  Abrahami,  7.  15  ;  Quis  rerutn  div.  haeres,  52  ;  and 
De  monarchia,  i.  9. 

^  Gfrorer,  op.  cit.,  i.  54,  seeks  to  distinguish  two  kinds  of  insinration 
in  Philo,  —  ipfiTjvfla  and  irpotpijTela,  —  but  no  clear  ground  for  the  dis- 
tinction appears. 

*  Vita  Mosis,  3.  39. 


PHILO  AS  INTERPRETER  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  43 

himself  far  above  all  other  prophets.  He  was  thought 
to  have  been  the  most  pious  of  men,  and  in  return  to  have 
been  peculiarly  honored  by  God,  being  made  king,  law- 
giver, priest,  and  prophet.^  Philo's  estimate  of  the 
uniqueness  of  Moses  appears  not  only  in  the  lofty  epithets 
applied  to  him,  but  also  in  the  fact  that  the  greater  part  of 
his  numerous  works  are  based  on  the  Pentateuch.^  It 
need  only  be  added  that  Philo  regarded  the  Greek  transla- 
tion of  the  Hebrew  original  as  no  less  fully  inspired  than 
that. 

Having  now  seen  how  the  way  for  Philo's  work  was 
prepared  and  how  he  thought  of  inspiration,  we  come  to  a 
nearer  view  of  his  interpretation  of  the  Old  Testament. 
It  may  be  said,  in  general,  that  every  word  of  Scripture 
had  for  him  two  meanings,  the  literal  and  the  allegorical.^ 
There  are  instances  where  the  literal  meaning  is  rejected,* 
and  there  are  passages  of  the  Law  to  which  no  allegorical 
meaning  is  attached ;  but  the  former  are  relatively  few  in 
number,  and  the  latter  do  not  prove  that  Philo  regarded 
them  as  utterly  devoid  of  allegorical  significance.^ 

These  two  meanings,  the  literal  and  the  allegorical,  were 
in  Philo's  thought  like  the  body  and  the  soul;^  and  though 

'  Vita  Mosis,  3.  i,  24,  39. 

^  It  appears  from  Ryle's  collection  of  Old  Testament  quotations  in  the 
works  of  Philo  that  about  xV  of  them  are  from  Genesis  and  all  but  ^  are 
from  the  Pentateuch.  See  Ryle,  Philo  and  Holy  Scripture.  For  a  list 
of  Philo's  works,  see  Schiirer,  Jewish  People,  2.  3.  327  f. 

^  Quod  dens  sit  immutabilis,  11. 

*  Legis  alleg.,  2.  7. 

^  See  Zeller,  Geschichte  der  griech.  Phil.,  3.  2.  347,  note  6. 

'  De  migratione  Abrahami,  16. 


44  THE   INTERPRETATION   OF   THE    BIBLE 

he  did  not  ignore  the  former,  his  chief  interest  was  plainly 
in  the  latter.  He  tells  us  that  he  had  a  natural  love  of  the 
more  recondite  and  laborious  knowledge/  and  this  love 
was  deepened  by  his  conviction  that  the  sacred  oracles 
themselves  urge  the  reader  on  to  the  pursuit  of  the  alle- 
gorical meaning.^ 

Philo  rejected  the  literal  sense  of  a  Scripture  text  when 
it  appeared  to  be  contradictory  or  unmeaning.  Thus, 
commenting  on  Gen.  2:1,  he  says  that  it  is  "altogether 
silly  to  think  that  the  world  was  created  in  six  days,  or 
indeed  in  time  at  all."  We  must  understand  that  Moses 
is  speaking  not  of  a  number  of  days,  but  that  he  merely 
takes  six  in  a  symbolical  sense,  as  appropriate  to  the  crea- 
tion of  mortal  beings.^  Thus  he  did  away  with  the  six 
days  of  creation  as  completely  as  have  modern  scientists, 
though  in  a  more  arbitrary  manner. 

A  second  illustration  of  the  point  under  discussion  is 
afforded  by  Philo's  treatment  of  Gen.  2:  21-22,  the  story 
regarding  the  origin  of  Eve.  He  declares  it  to  be  im- 
possible to  hold  the  literal  stnse.  "For  how,"  he  says, 
"  can  any  one  beheve  that  out  of  the  rib  of  a  man  there  was 
made  a  woman,  or  a  human  being  at  all  ?  What  hindered 
the  Creator  from  making  woman  out  of  the  earth  as  he 
had  made  man?  The  one  who  made  was  the  same,  and 
the  material  was  almost  interminable."^ 

Thus  Philo  regarded  the  Uteral  sense  of  these  words 
as  being  inherently  improbable.  In  this  point,  indeed, 
modern   scholars   are   in   agreement    with   Philo  —  they 

*  De  dccalogo,  i.  '  Legis  alleg.,  1.2. 

'  De  planlatione  Noe,  9.  *  Legis  alleg.,  2.  7. 


PHILO  AS  INTERPRETER  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT   45 

reject  the  literal  sense.  But  they  go  with  him  no  further. 
They  do  not  treat  the  passage  in  an  arbitrary  manner,  nor 
admit  tliat  its  meaning  is  hidden. 

To  take  yet  another  ilkistration.  Philo  declares  that 
the  Hteral  sense  of  the  statement  in  Gen.  4: 17,  that  Cain 
built  a  city,  is  "not  only  strange,  but  contrary  to  all  reason." 
For,  in  the  first  place,  there  were  only  three  human  beings 
in  existence  at  that  time.  They  had  no  need  of  a  city; 
a  small  cave  was  a  sufficient  abode.  And  then,  indeed,  Cain 
could  not  have  built  the  most  trifling  portion  of  a  house 
without  the  assistance  of  other  men.  Was  he  able  alone  to 
cut  stones  and  wood,  to  work  in  iron  and  brass,  and  to 
throw  the  vast  circumference  of  walls  around  the  city? 
Was  he  able  to  build  up  propyleea  and  temples  and  sacred 
precincts  and  porticoes  and  docks  and  houses  and  all  the 
other  public  and  private  buildings  which  one  is  accustomed 
to  find  in  a  city  ?  ^ 

Philo  often  rejected  the  literal  sense  of  a  passage  of 
Scripture  not  only  because,  as  in  the  preceding  instances, 
it  appeared  to  him  irrational  in  itself,  but  also  when  it 
seemed  to  be  unworthy  of  God.  Thus,  he  says  it  would  be 
"impiety,"  as  well  as  "incurable  folly,"  to  suppose  that 
God  literally  planted  a  garden  in  Eden.  For  why  should 
he  have  done  so?  That  he  might  have  pleasant  dwelling 
places?  But  even  the  whole  world  cannot  be  considered 
a  dwelling  sufficient  for  God,  the  All  Ruler. ^  Therefore 
Philo  rejected  the  literal  sense  of  all  anthropomorphic 

*  De  posteritate  Caini,  14. 

^  Legis  alleg.,  i.  14;   De  plantatione  Noe,  8. 


46  THE   INTERPRETATION   OF  THE   BIBLE 

language  which  is  used  of  God  in  Scripture,  and  saw  in  it 
only  an  allegorical  meaning. 

We  have  noticed  the  reasons  which  led  Philo  utterly  to 
set  aside  the  obvious  meaning  of  certain  passages  of  the 
Old  Testament.  It  is  to  be  added  that,  although  the  literal 
sense  of  the  text  is  usually  allowed  to  stand,  it  is  practically 
lost  sight  of,  because  the  hidden  meaning  is  considered 
far  more  glorious.  The  historical  Abraham  and  Sarah, 
Isaac  and  Jacob,  even  the  Samuel  of  histor}^  arc  all  more 
or  less  ghostly  and  unreal  in  Philo's  writings,  while  the 
allegorical  ideas  behind  those  names  are  brought  vividly 
forward. 

It  is  plain  that  in  his  treatment  of  the  literal  sense  of 
Scripture  Philo  was  a  law  unto  himself.  The  same  is  true 
of  his  allegorical  interpretation.  For  though  he  speaks  of 
the  rules  and  laws  of  allegorical  speech,^  it  is  quite  evident 
that  we  must  take  these  terms  as  having  had  a  very  elastic 
significance.  Different  allegorists  derived  from  the  same 
text  the  most  unlike  meanings.  Thus  the  tree  of  life  in 
the  garden  clearly  signified  goodness  to  Philo,  but  others 
said  that  it  meant  the  heart .^  Some  interpreters  said  that 
the  cherubim  whom  God  set  on  the  east  of  the  garden  of 
Eden  were  symbols  of  the  two  hemispheres,  which  are 
placed  opposite  to  each  other,^  but  according  to  Philo 
they  were  symbols  of  God's  creative  and  kingly  power. 
The  emeralds  on  the  shoulders  of  the  high  priest  were 

*  De  somniis,  i.  13,  16-17.  Siegfried,  op.  cit.,  makes  out  more  than 
twenty  "  laws  "  which  governed  Philo's  interpretation. 

*  Legis  alleg.,  i.  18. 
'  Vita  Mosis,  3.  8. 


PHILO  AS  INTERPRETER  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  47 

thought  by  some  to  mean  the  sun  and  moon,  while  Philo 
saw  in  them  the  two  hemispheres.^ 

Another  evidence  of  the  vagueness  of  Philo's  "rules"  of 
allegorical  speech  is  the  fact  that  they  allowed  him  to 
discover  in  a  single  word  or  passage  of  Scripture  a 
considerable  number  of  wholly  unrelated  meanings. 
To  illustrate :  Adam  was  told  that  he  might  eat  freely  of 
every  tree  in  the  garden  except  one.  Now  this  expression 
"to  eat  freely"  means  either  to  take  food  as  a  wrestler 
does,  thoroughly  masticating  it,  or  it  means  to  honor  the 
parents  with  understanding,  or  again  it  means  to  honor 
God  properly.^  Siegfried  ^  has  collected  passages  which 
show  that  the  name  "  Joseph"  was  interpreted  by  Philo  in 
no  less  than  six  ways,  meaning,  in  one  passage,  "states- 
man," in  another  "sophist,"  and  in  a  third  "materialist." 
To  the  word  "sun"  are  given  such  varying  significations 
as  "human  mind,"  "sensibility,"  the  "divine  word," 
and  the  "invisible  God."'*  Yet  one  more  illustration. 
The  words  addressed  to  Adam,  "Where  art  thou?" 
admit,  according  to  Philo,  of  being  interpreted  in  many 
ways.  By  altering  the  accent  on  the  Greek  particle  ttou 
(where),  we  get  the  positive  statement  "thou  art  some- 
where," which  teaches,  by  implication,  that  God  is  every- 
where, while  man  is  in  some  particular  spot.  Again,  the 
words  may  mean,  "Where  hast  thou  been?"  i.e.  "what 
evils  hast  thou  chosen?"  And  finally,  the  words  may  be 
a  simple  question,  to  which  the  proper  answer  would  be, 


*  Vita  Mosis,  3.  12.  ^  Op.  ciL,  1.  193. 

^  Legis  alleg.,  i.  37.  *  De  somniis,  i.  13,  14,  15. 


y 


48  THE   INTERPRETATION   OF   THE   BIBLE 

"Nowhere,"  for  "the  soul  of  the  wicked  man  has  no  place 
to  which  it  can  go."  ^ 

In  view  of  these  facts  it  is  clear  that  Philo's  "laws"  of 
allegorical  interpretation  were  not  of  the  nature  of  definite 
scientific  principles.  This  will  appear  further  as  we  con- 
sider his  laws  in  detail.  They  are  nowhere  presented  by 
themselves ;  Philo  did  not  write  on  the  science  of  inter- 
pretation ;  but  they  may  be  gathered  from  various  parts  of 
his  works.  It  will  be  sufficient  to  advert  to  the  more 
important  of  these  so-called  laws. 

It  has  already  been  observed  that,  in  Philo's  thought,  the 
sacred  oracles  themselves  most  evidently  conduct  us  toward 
allegory.  They  are  supposed  to  do  this,  in  the  first  place, 
by  the  repetition  of  a  word  or  thought.  Thus  when  a 
heavenly  voice  called  Abraham's  name  twice,  it  was  to 
turn  him  from  the  completion  of  the  sacrifice,^  and  when 
the  name  "man"  is  spoken  twice,  it  indicates  that  the 
virtuous  man  is  meant .^  The  peculiar  Hebrew  expression, 
"to  die  the  death"  means,  according  to  Philo,  the  death  of 
the  soul,  which  is  accompHshed  when  vice  is  admitted 
into  it." 

Again,  anything  unexpected,  whether  in  the  form  of  a 
word,  or  in  its  choice,  or  its  position  in  the  sentence,  is  a 
plain  indication  to  the  wise  man  that  we  should  search  out 
some  hidden  meaning.  Why,  e.g.,  since  Cain  was  older  than 
Abel,  is  Abel  mentioned  first  in  Gen.  4:2?  The  answer  is 
plain  to  Philo.  INIoses  wished  to  teach  in  this  manner 
that  wickedness  is  older  than  virtue  in  point  of  time,  but 

'  Legis  alleg.,  3.  17.  ^  Dc  gigdiitibus,  8. 

'  De  Abrahamo,  32.  ■•  Legis  alleg.,  i.  33;   De  profugis,  10. 


PHILO  AS  INTERPRETER  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT 


49 


younger  in  power  and  rank/  Further,  when  God  changed 
the  name  of  Abraham's  wife,  it  was  only  by  the  doubhng 
of  a  single  letter,^  at  which  slight  alteration,  says  Philo, 
some  foolish  persons  might  laugh;  but  one  letter  in  this 
case  has  the  numerical  value  of  one  hundred,  and  this 
number,  he  declares,  has  "begotten  all  harmony,  for  the 
small  it  has  made  the  great,  for  the  particular  the  general, 
for  the  mortal  the  immortal."  "By  a  total  change,  God 
transforms  the  part  into  the  whole,  the  species  into  the 
genus,  the  corruptible  into  the  incormptible."  ^ 

With  this  last  illustration  we  have  touched  a  third 
important  "law"  of  allegorical  speech;  namely,  that  num- 
bers have  a  deep  hidden  meaning.  Philo  derived  this  doc- 
trine from  the  Greek  philosophers,  in  particular  from  the 
Pythagoreans.*  True,  he  considered  Moses  the  master 
in  this  department  of  knowledge  as  in  all  others,^  and 
doubtless  thought  that  he  was  disclosing  the  lawgiver's 
deeper  meaning  in  his  explanation  of  the  numbers  of  the 
Law;  but,  in  reality,  the  hidden  meaning  of  numbers  is 
wholly  foreign  to  the  Old  Testament.^  Certain  numbers 
have  there,  it  is  true,  a  kind  of  sacredness,  as  seven,  ten, 
twelve,  and  forty,  but  the  sole  ground  of  this  sacredness 

1  De  sacrificiis  Ahelis  et  Caini,  4. 

'  Philo  has  the  Greek  forms  in  mind  —  ov  /cXij^'^a-erat  t6  6vofia.  avr^s 
2dpa,  dXXd  "Zappa  ecrrai  rb  &voixa  avTijs. 
^  Qtiaest.  et  sol.  in  Gen.,  3.  53. 
^See  Zeller,  Geschichte  der  griech.  Phil,  i.  i.  343;   3.  2.  120,  391. 

*  See,  e.g.,  De  opificio  niundi,  43. 

*  See  Ed.  Konig  in  Hastings'  Bible  Dictionary,  article  "  Number."  Sieg- 
fried, op.  cit.,  I.  16,  thinks  there  is  a  slight  basis  for  the  allegorical  inter- 
pretation of  numbers  in  Ezek.  4:4-8  and  Dan.  9 :  24. 

E 


so 


THE   INTERPRETATION    OF   THE    BIBLE 


is  historical.  It  is  not  mathematical  or  philosophi- 
cal.' 

The  investigation  of  numbers  appealed  to  Philo  most 
deeply,  and  he  never  tired  of  drawing  forth  new  and  won- 
drous thoughts  from  their  Scripture  use.  He  was  the 
equal,  as  Zeller  says,  of  any  Pythagorean.  Yet  he  did  not 
altogether  adopt  the  views  of  these  philosophers.  He 
evidently  did  not  regard  number  as  the  essence  of  all 
things,  the  very  substance  and  material  of  which  all  things 
consist,  or  as  the  original  thought  of  God ;  and,  naturally, 
he  could  not  consider  numbers  as  gods  and  goddesses. 
His  monotheism  forbade  this.  Yet  he  agreed  with  the 
Pythagoreans  in  the  meaning  of  many  numbers,  in  the 
significant  relation  of  numbers  to  figures,'  and  still  more 
in  the  arbitrary  method  of  handling  them.  These  points 
will  be  illustrated  as  we  proceed.  There  is  perhaps  no 
element  in  Philo's  interpretation  which  appears  to  us  in 
this  age  more  utterly  irrational  and  absurd  than  this 
allegorizing  of  Scripture  numbers,  but  there  was  certainly 
none  on  which  he  himself  dwelt  so  fondly. 

Another  of  Philo's  "laws''  of  allegory  was  to  use  the 
etymologies  of  proper  names.  He  usually  started  from 
the  Greek  rendering  of  the  Hebrew  names,  and  proceeded 
with  the  utmost  freedom.  His  method  and  its  results 
may  be  sufficiently  indicated  by  his  handling  of  the  names 
of  the  four  rivers  mentioned  in  Gen.  2  :  11-14.  "Pishon" 
he  derives  from  a  Greek  verb  ((f)€i8ofxai)  meaning  (0 
spare,  to  abslain  from,  and  he  takes  the  word  in  the  sense 

'  Sec  Keil,  Biblical  Archccolos^y,  i.  127,  133-137. 
^  See,  e.g.,  De  opijicio  mundi,  32. 


PHILO  AS  INTERPRETER  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT    51 

of  prudence,  for  prudence  abstains  from  iniquity.  From 
the  name  of  the  second  river,  "  Gihon,"  Philo  obtained, 
by  some  unknown  etymology,  the  two  meanings  chest 
and  hutting  with  the  horns;  and  then  taking  these  as 
symbols,  he  interpreted  Gihon  to  mean  courage.  Out  of 
"Tigris,"  the  name  of  the  third  river  of  Eden,  he  derived 
the  meaning  temperance,  and  in  the  following  singular 
manner.  He  took  the  word  as  identical  with  the  Greek 
for  "tiger"  (riypif).  The  tiger  he  regarded  as  a  symbol 
of  desire.  Now  as  temperance  has  to  do  intimately  with 
desire,  he  concluded  that  the  river  denoted  temperance. 
The  name  "Euphrates"  he  derived  from  the  Greek  verb 
to  be  glad  (€vcf)paiV(o),  and  gave  it  the  meaning  fer- 
tility, and  from  this  he  passed  to  the  idea  of  "justice," 
since  this  is  most  truly  a  fertile  virtue.^  Thus  the  four 
rivers  of  the  old  record  became,  under  the  hand  of  Philo, 
the  four  cardinal  virtues  —  prudence,  courage,  temper- 
ance, and  justice  ! 

One  other  illustration  of  Philo's  use  of  proper  names 
may  be  added  for  the  sake  of  its  ingeniousness.  The 
name  "Terah,"  he  says,  means  "the  investigation  of  a 
smell."  Hence  Terah,  the  father  of  Abraham,  died,  as  was 
fitting,  in  "  Haran,"  which  signifies  the  metropolis  of  the 
outward  senses,  for  he  was  merely  an  explorer  of  virtue,  not 
a  citizen.  He  was  not  able  to  fill  himself  with  wisdom,  nor 
indeed  even  to  get  a  taste  of  it,  but  only  to  smell  it."  These 
illustrations  of  Philo's  treatment  of  proper  names  need  not 
be  increased.     They  show  that  his  method  was  fanciful 

'■  Legis  alleg.,  i.  20-21. 
^  De  somniis,  9. 


52  THE   INTERPRETATION   OF   THE   BIBLE 

and  arbitrary  in  the  extreme,  and  wholly  without  scientific 
value. 

There  is  yet  one  feature  of  Philo's  allegorical  interpre- 
tation which  we  may  suppose  that  he  included  when  he 
spoke  of  "laws."  It  is  that  all  objects  whatsoever  have 
each  one  its  hidden  meaning  or  meanings.  Thus  heaven 
denotes  mind ;  earth,  sensation.^  A  field  is  the  symbol  of 
revolt  and  contention,  because  battles  usually  take  place 
on  open  ground ;  ^  irrational  passions  are  symbolized  by 
sheep ;  ^  a  ring  denotes,  among  other  things,  the  form  which 
God  stamps  on  the  individual  soul ;  *  a  well  is  an  emblem  of 
knowledge,  for  its  nature  is  not  superficial,  but  very  deep ;  ^ 
the  garment  which  was  to  be  restored  to  a  debtor  before 
sunset  (Ex.  22 :  26)  signified  speech,  for  as  a  garment 
is  a  kind  of  defensive  armor,  so  speech  is  a  most  "im- 
pregnable protection."^  To  these  might  be  added  scores 
of  illustrations,  usually  ingenious,  sometimes  suggestive, 
always  arbitrary. 

Having  now  spoken  of  the  most  important  "laws"  of 
allegorical  interpretation  to  be  found  in  the  writings  of 
Philo,  we  will  next  cite  a  few  instances  of  their  practical 
application,  that  we  may  clearly  see  what  the  Old  Testa- 
ment became  in  his  hands.  On  the  fourth  day  of  creation, 
says  Philo,  after  God  had  embellished  the  earth,  he 
diversified  and  adorned  the  heaven,  and  it  is  a  matter  of 
endless  significance  to  the  interpreter  that  this  was  done 

*  Legis  alleg.,  8.  ■*  De  somniis,  2.  6. 

'  De  eo  quod  del.  pot.  insidiatur,  i.         *  Ibid.,  i.  2. 
'  De  plantatione  Noe,  10.  '  Ibid.,  i.  17. 


PHILO  AS  INTERPRETER  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT    53 

on  the  fourth  clay.^  This  number  is  the  origin  and  source 
of  the  "all-perfect  decade,"  for  the  numerals  from  one  to 
four,  when  added  together,  make  ten.  Four  comprehends 
the  principles  of  the  harmonious  concords  in  music; 
four  displays  the  nature  of  the  solid  cube;  it  is  the  first 
number  which  is  a  square ;  it  was  the  foundation  of  the 
creation  of  the  whole  heaven  and  the  whole  world;  the 
four  elements  and  the  four  seasons  flowed  from  it  "as 
from  a  fountain." 

Again,  the  most  weighty  detail  in  the  entire  account  of 
creation  was,  according  to  Philo,  the  statement  that  God 
hallowed  the  seventh  day.  More  than  one-fifth  of  his 
treatise  is  devoted  to  an  unfolding  of  the  meaning  of  this 
number.  Philo  doubts  whether  any  one  is  able  to  celebrate 
its  nature  in  an  adequate  manner.^  It  has  "great  sanc- 
tity"; it  is  the  only  thing  free  from  motion  and  accident; 
it  displays  a  "great  and  comprehensive  power";  it  im- 
proves all  terrestrial  things  and  even  the  periods  of  the 
moon.^  Man's  life  falls  into  divisions  of  seven  years; 
the  constellation  of  the  Bear  has  seven  stars,  which  guide 
the  sailor  by  innumerable  paths  across  the  sea ;  the  Pleiads 
are  seven ;  the  dominant  part  of  the  mind  is  divided  into 
seven  parts ;  the  external  members  of  the  body  are  seven, 
likewise  the  internal  members ;  there  are  seven  changes  of 
the  voice,  seven  motions  of  which  we  are  capable,  and 
dangerous  diseases  are  decided  about  the  seventh  day.* 
In  view  of  such  facts  this  number  was  honored  by  the 
greatest  of  the  Greeks  and  of  the  barbarians  who  were 

*  Dc  opificio  miindi,  14,  15,  16.  ^  Ibid.,  33,  34. 

^  Ibid.,  30.  *  Ibid.,  35,  39,  40,  41. 


54  THE    IXTERrRETATION    OF   THE   BIBLE 

devoted  to  mathematics.  oMoses,  too,  held  it  in  highest 
esteem. 

In  his  Life  of  Moses,  after  describing  the  dress  of  the 
high  priest,  Philo  explains  its  meaning  substantially  as 
follows :  The  whole  is  a  copy  of  the  world ;  the  tunic  is  the 
air ;  the  flowers  are  the  earth ;  the  pomegranates  are  water ; 
the  bells  are  an  emblem  of  the  harmony  that  exists  between 
the  foregoing  things;  and  the  mantle  over  the  shoulders 
is  an  emblem  of  heaven.  For  this  last  item  in  his  interpre- 
tation the  author  says  that  he  is  able  to  bring  forth  twenty 
probable  reasons.^  In  Gen.  7  :  9  the  water  of  the  Flood 
is  said  to  have  covered  the  highest  mountains  to  a  depth  of 
fifteen  cubits.  This  statement,  says  Philo,  must  be  taken 
allegorically.  The  loftier  mountains  represent  the  senses, 
because  they  are  allowed  to  occupy  the  abode  of  stability 
in  the  lofty  region  of  the  head.  Now  there  are  five  of  the 
senses,  and  each  is  threefold ;  thus  we  get  the  fifteen 
cubits.  And  the  overwhelming  of  the  mountains  signifies 
that  the  senses  are  destroyed  by  the  influx  of  vice.^ 

Again,  the  question  is  asked  why  the  woman  first  ate 
of  the  tree  and  the  man  afterwards,  receiving  the  fruit  from 
her,  and  it  is  answered  in  this  manner :  The  letter,  by  its 
own  intrinsic  force,  asserts  that  it  was  suitable  that  immor- 
tality and  ever}'  good  thing  should  be  represented  as  under 
the  power  of  the  man,  but  death  and  every  evil  under  that 
of  the  woman.  Understood  symbolically,  the  woman  is 
sense,  the  man  is  intellect.  Now  as  the  senses  touch  those 
things  which  are  perceptible  by  them,  and  as  the  intellect 

'  Vita  Mosis,  3.  12.  '  Quaest.  et  sol.,  2.  21. 


PHILO  AS  INTERPRETER  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT    55 

is  influenced  by  the  senses,  so  it  was  necessary  that  the 
woman  should  eat  first  and  man  afterwards,  receiving  the 
fruit  from  her.^ 

These  illustrations  of  Philo's  exegesis  must  suffice,  and 
we  proceed  to  some  general  concluding  remarks.  And, 
in  the  first  place,  it  must  be  said  that  this  exegesis  is 
characterized  by  an  utter  lack  of  the  sense  of  proportion. 
This  is  seen,  e.g.,  in  the  fact  that  what  is  incidental  is 
treated  as  essential,  and  the  essential  is  often  utterly  ignored 
or  is  treated  as  incidental.  Philo  does  not  see  the  forest 
for  the  trees.  The  historical  significance  of  great  charac- 
ters, like  Abraham,  is  lost  in  a  multitude  of  fanciful  details. 
An  insignificant  number  receives  more  attention  than  a 
moral  principle  or  the  creation  of  the  universe.  Again,  the 
lack  of  proportion  is  seen  in  the  fact  that  Philo  took  almost 
no  account  of  the  devotional  parts  of  the  Old  Testament,  or 
of  the  Prophets.  For  him  Moses  was  the  perfect  inter- 
preter of  the  divine  will.  He  had  no  appreciation  of  a 
growth  of  revelation  after  the  time  of  Moses.  If  he  men- 
tioned the  Prophets,  it  was  simply  as  disciples  of  the  law- 
giver. It  is  obvious,  therefore,  that,  as  an  interpreter  of 
the  Old  Testament,  Philo  was  extremely  partial  and  frag- 
mentary. 

In  the  second  place,  his  exegesis  was  characterized  by 
two  presuppositions,  either  one  of  which  alone  must  have 
seriously  detracted  from  its  value,  and  which,  taken 
together,  made  it  cjuite  impossible  for  him  soundly  to  in- 
terpret the  writings  of  the  Old  Testament.  These  pre- 
suppositions were,  first,  that  the  words  of  Scripture  have  a 

'  Quacst.  et  sol.,  1.  37. 


56  THE    INTERPRETATION   OF   THE    BIBLE 

twofold  sense,  and  second,  that  they  were  miraculously 
inspired.  In  working  out  the  first  of  these  presuppositions, 
Philo  became  the  master  of  all  who,  abandoning  the  plain 
sense  of  the  text  or  slighting  it,  have  substituted  for  it  a 
sense  purely  imaginary/  The  second  presupposition  was 
not  more  conspicuous  in  his  writings  than  in  the  aver- 
age Christian  commentator  during  the  next  fifteen  cen- 
turies. 

And  finally,  Philo 's  exegesis  was  everywhere  strongly 
colored  by  his  philosophical  conceptions.  As  has  been 
said  already,  he  believed  that  the  Greek  philosophers 
derived  their  true  doctrines  from  Moses.  Therefore  his 
interpretation  of  Moses  is  full  of  views  borrowed  from 
classic  writings.  Philo  is  the  master  of  all  who  have  read 
into  the  Bible  what  they  have  brought  from  elsewhere. 
To  show  how  fully  he  did  this  would  require  a  survey  of 
his  entire  philosophical  system,  but  a  very  brief  statement 
will  suffice  to  estabhsh  the  fact  itself.  We  have  shown 
above  that  the  Greek  doctrine  of  the  hidden  significance  of 
numbers  was  regarded  by  Philo  as  a  part  of  the  excellent 
knowledge  of  the  Hebrew  lawgiver.  The  same  is  true  of 
the  Platonic  doctrine  of  ideas.  Before  God  created  the 
visible  world,  he  created  one  which  is  perceptible  only  by 
the  intellect,  an  incorporeal  model  of  the  world  which  is 
seen.^  Accordingly,  every  object  perceived  by  the  senses 
was  made  in  the  image  of  a  preexistent  invisible  pattern. 
Before  God  created  man  upon  the  earth,  he  fashioned  an 
archetypal  heavenly  man  in  whom  there  was  no  corruptible 

'  Comp.  Zeller,  Geschichle  der  griech.  Phil.,  3.  2.  351. 
'  De  opificio  mundi,  4. 


PHILO  AS  INTERPRETER  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT    57 

element.^  Or  take  the  many-sided  Logos  doctrine  of 
Philo.  Whatever  kinship  there  may  be  at  certain  points 
between  this  doctrine  and  "wisdom"  in  Proverbs  or  the 
"Memra"  of  later  Jewish  writings,  it  certainly  has  no 
clear  starting-point  in  the  Pentateuch.  But  Philo  uses  this 
conception  freely  in  his  interpretation  of  Moses.  Thus 
he  represents  the  lawgiver  as  teaching  that  the  human  mind 
was  made  in  the  simihtude  of  the  Logos;  ^  that  the  Logos 
is  the  interpreter  of  God ;  ^  that  he  is  an  archangel,  neither 
created  nor  uncreated,  an  ambassador  from  God  to  the 
subject  race  of  mankind,  and  a  suppliant  to  God  on  behalf 
of  mortals.*  In  this  doctrine,  though  something  may  be 
attributed  to  the  speculative  mind  of  Philo,  we  have  in  the 
main  Greek  conceptions. 

For  the  present  purpose  it  is  not  necessary  to  continue 
these  illustrations.  In  his  doctrine  of  God  and  the  soul, 
and  in  his  ethics,  Philo's  interpretation  of  the  Pentateuch 
has  been  fructified  by  Greek  philosophy.  For  this 
reason,  therefore,  as  well  as  for  the  two  fundamental 
reasons  previously  mentioned,  the  work  of  the  famous 
Alexandrian,  whose  vast  influence  on  the  Christian  Church 
we  shall  notice  in  subsequent  chapters,  was  without  real 
value  as  an  aid  to  the  understanding  of  the  Old  Testament. 

'  Quaest.  et  sol.,  1.4;  Legisalleg.,  i.  12.        ^  De  nominibus,  3. 

"^  Quaest.  et  sol.,  2.  62.  *  Quis  rerum  div.,  etc.,  42. 


CHAPTER  III 

THE    OLD    TESTAMENT    INTERPRETED    IN   THE    NEW 

I.    The  Interpretation  of  the  Old  Testament  by  Jesus 

The  scene  in  the  Temple  at  Jerusalem  where  Jesus, 
now  twelve  years  of  age,  sat  among  the  leading  Jewish 
rabbis,  both  hearing  them  and  asking  them  questions,  and 
amazing  them  by  his  understanding  of  Scripture,  clearly 
indicates  that  here  was  a  boy  on  whose  mind  the  Old 
Testament  had  exercised  a  very  unusual  power.  For 
before  the  curtain  falls  on  this  striking  scene  in  the  Temple, 
we  hear  certain  words  of  Jesus  spoken  to  his  mother, 
which  plainly  suggest  that  his  knowledge  of  the  Old 
Testament  was  not  simply  an  acquaintance  with  its  letter, 
but  was  rather  a  spiritual  understanding  of  its  content 
(Luke  2  :  46-50).  He  speaks  of  being  engaged  in  the 
things  of  his  "Father" — an  intimation,  surely,  that  as 
he  had  read  the  Old  Testament  by  the  light  of  his  pure 
heart,  he  had  found  there  the  fatherhood  of  God,  that 
truth  which  was  to  determine  his  entire  career.  Thus 
this  early  scene  suggests  what  the  public  ministry  of  Jesus 
abundantly  confirms,  that  the  knowledge  which  surprised 
the  great  doctors  was  a  knowledge  which  penetrated 
beneath  the  letter  of  Scripture  into  its  vital  revelation. 
If  this  be  true,  then  the  glimpse  which  Luke  gives  into 

58 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  INTERPRETED  IN  THE  NEW    59 

the  boyhood  of  Jesus  justifies  us  in  anticipating  that  this 
same  person,  grown  to  manhood  and  appearing  as  a 
reUgious  teacher  in  Israel,  will  inaugurate  a  new  epoch 
in  the  interpretation  of  the  ancient  writings  of  his  nation.^ 

The  personal  attitude  of  Jesus  toward  the  institutions 
of  the  Law  is  a  valuable  source  of  information  regarding 
the  method  and  results  of  his  exegesis,  for  his  interpretation 
was  never  professional,  but  altogether  practical.  From 
the  point  of  view  of  the  scribes  and  Pharisees,  Jesus,  dur- 
ing his  public  ministry,  certainly  appeared  to  be  in  large 
measure  a  lawless  man.  That  part  of  the  rehgious  ordi- 
nances that  he  kept  was  much  less  than  that  which  he 
did  not  keep.  This  latter  class  of  ordinances  were  not 
found  in  the  written  law,  it  is  true,  but  they  were  regarded 
as  its  authoritative  interpretation,  and  hence  as  absolutely 
binding  on  the  conscience.  It  had  come  to  pass  that  the 
"hedge"  was  more  sacred  than  the  Law  around  which  it 
was  set,  the  words  of  the  wise  sweeter  than  the  wine  of  the 
Torah.  The  authority  of  the  scribe  had  become  superior 
to  that  of  the  written  law.^ 

By  Jesus,  however,  this  oral  law  was  sharply  discrimi- 
nated from  Scripture.  He  referred  to  it  as  a  plant  that 
his  heavenly  Father  had  not  planted,  and  which  for  that 
reason  should  be  rooted  up  (Matt.  15  :  13).  In  some 
instances    he    regarded    the    traditions    as    diametrically 

*  This  prophecy  of  Jesus'  boyhood  was  fulfilled,  as  we  shall  see,  and 
yet  to  this  day  his  exegesis  of  the  Old  Testament  has  been  almost  entirely 
ignored.  It  has  been  treated  indiscriminately  with  that  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment writers. 

^  See  Weber,  Jiidisclie  Tlieologie,  pp.  105-109,  125-134;  Mark 
7  : 11-12. 


6o  THE   INTERPRETATION   OF   THE    BIBLE 

opposed  to  the  commandment  of  God,  so  that  the  trans- 
gression of  the  commandment  was  a  necessary  conse- 
quence of  loyalty  to  the  tradition  (e.g.  ISIatt.  15  :  3-6). 
He  spoke  of  the  rites  imposed  by  the  scribes  and  Pharisees 
as  a  heavy  burden  and  grievous  to  be  borne  (Matt.  23 :  4; 
comp.  Acts  15  :  11).  The  typical^  Pharisee  was  a  man 
whose  religion  he  rated  very  low  (e.g.  Luke  18  :  9-14; 
Matt.  23  :  13-36).  Thus  Jesus  stood  forth  even  from 
the  beginning  of  his  ministry  as  one  who  made  a  sweep- 
ing and  fundamental  discrimination  between  the  current 
interpretation  of  Scripture  and  the  Scripture  itself.  He 
claimed  the  right  to  go  to  the  sources.  In  this  procedure 
he  was  doubtless  guided,  not  by  any  critical  knowledge 
of  the  unlike  origins  of  the  oral  and  the  written  law,  but 
solely  by  his  spiritual  insight.  The  significance  of  this 
appeal  of  Jesus  to  the  Old  Testament  itself,  rejecting  the 
immemorial  traditions  of  the  Jewish  Church,  is  not  to  be 
underestimated  in  any  attempt  to  judge  of  him  as  an 
interpreter  of  the  sacred  writings  of  his  people.  The  fact 
of  this  appeal  raised  him  far  above  all  the  rabbis  of  his 
nation,  and  was  the  first  step  toward  a  valid  estimate  of 
the  Old  Testament.  The  movement  in  the  modern 
Church  to  turn  away  from  all  traditional  theology  and  to 
go  back  to  a  fresh  study  of  Scripture  as  the  basis  of  its 
beUef,  though  not  directly  due  to  the  example  of  Jesus, 
is  certainly  in  full  accord  with  it. 

'  In  Berachoth  seven  classes  of  Pharisees  are  described,  of  which  only 
one  is  wholly  commended,  viz.,  the  class  who,  like  Abraham,  fulfil  the 
law  out  of  love.  There  may  well  have  been  some  men  in  the  time  of  Jesus 
who  belonged  to  lliis  class. 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  INTERPRETED  IN  THE   NEW   6 1 

But  the  bold  act  of  Jesus  in  disregarding  the  oral  law 
was  hardly  less  striking  than  the  character  of  his  inter- 
pretation of  the  written  law.  Consider  first  that  inter- 
pretation which  is  conspicuously  made  known  in  his  life. 
Jesus  recognized,  indeed,  the  divine  institution  of  the 
Sabbath,  but  took  at  the  same  time  such  a  liberal  view 
of  it  that  a  deadly  hostility  toward  him  was  the  result. 
He  held  quite  positively  that  man  is  greater  than  the 
Sabbath  (Mark  2  :  27),  therefore  he  did  not  hesitate  to 
continue  his  ministry  of  healing  on  that  day,  nor  did  he 
restrain  his  disciples  from  plucking  heads  of  grain  to 
satisfy  their  hunger.  This  act  he  thought  to  be  well 
within  the  scriptural  understanding  of  Sabbath  obser- 
vance. For  the  story  of  David  (i  Sam.  21 : 1-6),  who  ate 
the  shewbread  contrary  to  the  letter  of  Lev.  24 :  g,  teaches 
that  human  need,  such  as  his  disciples  had  experienced, 
is  of  more  importance  than  the  statute  regarding  the 
shewbread,  and  so  by  parity  of  reasoning  of  more  impor- 
tance than  the  statutes  regarding  the  Sabbath.  And,  in 
the  judgment  of  Jesus,  his  disciples  were  also  sheltered 
by  the  Old  Testament  principle  that  God  prefers  mercy 
to  sacrifice  (Matt.  9:13;  12:7;  Hos.  6:1);  in  other 
words,  that  the  law  of  the  Sabbath  is  plainly  subordinated 
to  the  higher  law  of  mercy.* 

Not  without  significance  in  its  bearing  on  the  exegetical 
method  of  Jesus  is  the  argument  with  which  he  justified 
his  healing  of  a  cripple  on  the  Sabbath,  for  which  act  the 

*  Even  the  critics  of  Jesus  recognized  the  validity  of  this  principle  (e.g. 
Luke  14:  1-6;  Matt.  12  :  11-12),  but  were  not  consistent  in  its  applica- 
tion. 


62  THE    INTERPRETATION    OF   THE    BIBLE 

Jews  were  persecuting  him  (John  5:9-18).  On  this 
occasion  he  insisted  on  an  interpretation  of  the  Sabbath 
law  in  the  hght  of  God's  own  example.  "My  Father 
workcth  even  until  now,"  said  he,  "and  I  work,"  that  is 
to  say,  the  Father  works  on  the  Sabbath.^  Thus  the 
revelation  of  God  in  Nature  and  life  furnished,  at  least 
in  one  instance,  a  guide  for  the  interpretation  of  a  writ- 
ten statute;  and  the  fact  that  Jesus  appealed  to  this 
revelation  is  one  of  the  evidences  that  his  interpreta- 
tion of  the  law  rested  on  profound  and  comprehensive 
thought. 

Noticeable  in  this  connection  is  Jesus'  treatment  of 
lepers.  On  two  occasions  (Mark  1:44;  Luke  17:14) 
he  directed  persons  whom  he  had  cured  of  leprosy  to  go 
to  the  priests  and  perform  the  statutory  rites.  They  were 
not  to  imagine  that  the  extraordinary  method  of  their 
cure  released  them  from  their  ordinary  obhgations  as 
Israehtes.  It  should  be  noticed,  however,  that,  while 
Jesus  here  recognized  the  statute  regarding  leprosy,  he 
did  not  rebuke  that  leper  who,  contrary  to  the  law,  had 
come  into  the  house  where  he  was  lodging,  nor  did  he 
rebuke  the  Samaritan  leper  who,  before  he  had  been 
ceremonially  cleansed  of  his  leprosy,  came  into  his  pres- 
ence, which  also  was  against  the  statute  (Lev.  13:45-46; 
14).  We  may  suppose  that,  in  one  case,  the  man's  trust, 
in  the  other,  his  gratitude,  atoned  in  the  sight  of  Jesus 
for  an  infraction  of  the  letter  of  the  law. 

'  The  rabbis  in  their  glorification  of  the  Torah  went  so  far  as  to  aflSrm 
that  God  observes  all  the  statutes  of  the  Sabbath.  See  Weber,  Jildische 
Theologie,  pp.  17-18. 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  INTERPRETED  IN  THE  NEW    63 

Thus  it  appears  ^  that  Jesus  recognized  the  institutions 
of  the  Law  as  clothed  with  sacred  authority,  but  that  his 
interpretation  of  the  statutes  regarding  them  was  in  a 
remarkably  broad  and  liberal  spirit.^  He  supported  his 
interpretation  not  only  out  of  the  Scriptures,  recognizing 
there  a  higher  and  a  lower,  and  interpreting  Scripture  by 
Scripture,  but  he  supported  it  also  by  appeals  to  the 
reason,  the  experience,  and  the  moral  instincts  of  man. 

The  method  of  interpreting  the  Old  Testament  which  is 
thus  reflected  in  the  life  of  Jesus  also  runs  through  his 
teaching.  It  is  to  be  noticed  here  at  the  outset  that  Jesus 
regarded  the  Law  and  the  Prophets,  that  is,  the  entire 
Old  Testament  (Matt.  7:12;  Luke  16:29),  as  con- 
stituting a  true  unity.  He  summed  up  the  ethical  teach- 
ing of  both  in  the  single  principle  that  we  should  do  to 
others  as  we  would  have  them  do  to  us  (Matt.  7:  12); 
and  again,  in  regard  to  the  two  commandments  enjoining 
love  to  God  and  love  toward  the  neighbor,  he  declared 
that  all  the  prophets,  no  less  than  the  entire  law,  hang 
upon  them  (Matt.  22:40;  Deut.  6:4-5;  Lev.  19:18). 
According  to  this  declaration,  the  main  divisions  of  the 
Old  Testament  were  unified,  in  the  thought  of  Jesus, 
by  a  common  ethical  teaching.  We  may  also  say  that 
they  were  unified  for  him  by  a  common  Messianic  element, 
for  it  is  plain  that  he  found  such  an  element  both  in  the 
Law  and  in  the  Prophets  (e.g.  Matt.  5  :  12;  Luke  24:  27; 
John  5:46). 

*  For  further  illustrations,  see  Matt.  17:  24-27;  Mark  14  :  12-25. 

'  Dr.  Sanders,  in  his  introduction  to  MacFarland's  Jesus  and  the 
Prophets,  well  says  of  Jesus  that  he  was  "the  first  free  spiritual  ex- 
pounder of  the  Scriptures." 


64  THE   INTERPRETATION    OF   THE   BIBLE 

Thus,  notmthstanding  the  wide  differences  between 
law  and  prophecy,  which  Jesus  surely  appreciated  more 
fully  by  far  than  any  other  student  of  the  Bible  has  ever 
done,  and  not^vithstanding  the  ethical  imperfections  of 
the  Law,  which  he  pointed  out,  especially  in  the  Sermon 
on  the  Mount,  the  Old  Testament  was  to  him  an  organic 
whole. 

Again,  the  Old  Testament,  taken  as  a  whole,  was  re- 
garded by  Jesus  as  containing  a  divine  revelation.  Moses 
and  the  Prophets,  he  said  in  the  parable  of  the  Rich  Man 
and  Lazarus,  were  sufficient  to  teach  mercy  and  to  show 
one  the  way  to  Abraham's  bosom  (Luke  16 :  29),  His 
o^Ya  instruction  often  echoed  that  of  the  Old  Testament. 
Thus  what  he  said  of  the  meek  and  of  those  who  mourn, 
of  the  merciful  and  the  pure  in  heart,  has  parallels  more 
or  less  complete  in  the  Psalms  and  the  Prophets.^ 
The  principle  of  love  which  he  recognized  as  the  culmi- 
nation of  Old  Testament  teaching  was  fundamental  in 
his  own  life  and  words.  Even  Moses'  seat  he  recognized 
as  a  seat  of  authority  (Matt.  23 :  2),  and  warned  men 
against  imagining  that  he  had  come  to  antagonize  the 
old  order,  as  though  it  were  not  of  God  (Matt.  5:17). 
The  fact  that  he  represented  his  own  teaching  as  a 
development  or  fulfilment  of  the  old  order,  implies  that, 
in  his  thought,  Moses  and  the  Prophets  were  channels  of 
divine  revelation,  even  as  he  was. 

But  though  Jesus  recognized  a  certain  unity  in  the  Old 
Testament,  and  saw  in  it  a  divine  revelation,  he  did  not 
regard  it  as  a  homogeneous  book,  each  part  of  which  was  as 

*  See,  c.^.,  Ps.  37:  II ;  Is.  61:1-2;   2  Sam.  22:26;   Ps.  24:4. 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  INTERPRETED  IN  THE   NEW    65 

good  and  as  true  as  any  other  part.  Superior  to  all  the 
ceremonial  commandments,  such  as  circumcision,  sacri- 
fices, tithes,  and  feasts,  was  the  injunction  to  love  God  and 
the  fellow-man.  This  same  broad  distinction  between  the 
ethical  and  the  ceremonial  elements  in  the  Old  Testament 
is  seen  in  Christ's  arraignment  of  the  Pharisees  (Matt.  23). 
He  charged  them  with  hypocrisy  because  they  were 
scrupulous  in  tithing  even  mint,  anise,  and  cummin,  while 
at  the  same  time  they  neglected  justice,  mercy,  and  faith. 
These  things  were  "weightier,"  he  said,  than  the  others, 
and  their  observance  therefore  more  important. 

And  Jesus  not  only  distinguished  between  the  ethical  and 
the  ceremonial,  but  also  between  various  ethical  elements. 
While  there  were  some  precepts,  as  we  have  already  seen, 
which  he  wholly  welcomed,  there  were  others  which  he 
unhesitatingly  set  aside  as  affording  no  adequate  standard 
for  the  members  of  his  kingdom  (e.g.  Matt.  5:31-32). 
The  practice  of  divorce,  sanctioned  by  the  law  in  view  of 
the  hardness  of  man's  heart,  he  condemned  as  immoral 
(Matt.  5 :  32),  and  a  principle  not  found  in  the  legislative 
part  of  the  Pentateuch  was  declared  to  be  the  true  stand- 
ard (Gen.  2:24).  Hatred  of  enemies,  which  seemed  to 
be  involved  in  Lev.  19:18  and  which  was  also  contained 
in  "the  spirit  of  the  Israelitish  law"  in  general,  he  not 
only  discountenanced,  but  taught  that  it  was  the  exact 
opposite  of  what  God  wished  for  man.  In  the  Sermon 
on  the  Mount  he  clearly  asserted  that  the  ethics  of  the 
Decalogue  were  quite  too  rudimentary  to  be  suitable  for 
his  kingdom  (e.g.  Matt.  5:  21-26,  27-28,  33-37). 

In  view  of  such  facts  as  these,  it  admits  of  no  question 


66  THE   INTERPRETATION    OF   THE    ElBLE 

that,  if  an  infallible  book  is  one  that  contains  no  imper- 
fections in  its  teaching,  Jesus  cannot  be  cited  as  a  witness 
for  the  infallibility  of  the  Old  Testament ;  and  if  an  inspired 
book  is  one  whose  statements  are  all  true  and  all  fit  together, 
forming  a  symmetrical  whole,  then  he  cannot  be  cited  as 
a  witness  for  the  inspiration  of  the  Old  Testament.  This 
doctrine  of  inspiration  and  infallibility,  so  long  and  so 
vigorously  supported  as  a  corner-stone  of  the  Christian 
religion,  is  flatly  against  the  conception  of  Scripture  which 
Jesus  entertained. 

It  remains  to  speak  of  Jesus'  interpretation  of  the 
Messianic  element  in  the  Old  Testament.  This  was  as 
widely  different  from  the  current  views,  both  in  method 
and  result,  as  was  his  interpretation  of  Old  Testament 
law  and  ethics.  He  saw  in  the  Scriptures  a  foreshadowing 
of  his  Hfe  and  work,  but  he  saw  no  predictions.  He  saw 
a  Messiah  foreshadowed  who  was  not  a  king  on  David's 
throne,  but  an  itinerant  prophet,  a  man  with  no  other 
authority  than  the  authority  of  the  truth,  one  who  was  to 
sacrifice  everything  to  bring  home  to  men  the  love  of 
God. 

The  nature  and  extent  of  this  Old  Testament  fore- 
shadowing appears  when  we  consider  some  of  the  words 
of  Jesus.  On  a  certain  occasion  Jesus  read,  in  the  syna- 
gogue at  Nazareth,  the  opening  verses  of  Is.  6i  and 
declared  their  fulfilment  in  him  (Luke  4:18-21).  Now 
it  is  obvious  that  the  Old  Testament  author  of  this  passage 
was  himself  divinely  anointed  to  preach  glad  tidings  unto 
the  meek.  His  words  prove  that  the  Spirit  of  Jehovah 
rested    abundantly  upon    him.     They  cannot,  therefore, 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  INTERPRETED  IN  THE  NEW   67 

have  referred  in  any  exclusive  sense  to  the  coming  Messiah, 
and  there  is  no  indication  that  Jesus  saw  in  them  such  a 
predictive  reference.  He  simply  knew  in  himself  that  he 
could  translate  the  old  vision  into  life  as  it  had  never  yet 
been  translated.  In  this  sense  he  was  conscious  of  ful- 
filling it. 

It  is  a  fact  full  of  significance  that  when  the  Baptist 
sent  from  his  prison  to  ask  Jesus  whether  he  was  indeed 
the  coming  one,  the  Master  gave  him  an  indirect  answer, 
telling  the  messengers  to  inform  John  of  what  he  was 
doing  and  leaving  him  to  draw  his  own  inference  (Matt. 
11:2-6).  But  that  which  Jesus  was  just  then  doing 
corresponded  in  a  marvellous  manner  to  certain  visions 
of  Isaiah  {e.g.,  chap.  35)  regarding  the  blessing  which  Jeho- 
vah would  some  day  bring  to  his  people.  We  cannot  say 
that  it  corresponded  as  face  answers  to  face  in  a  glass,  for 
the  realization  was  far  more  glorious  than  the  vision.  It  is 
to  be  noticed  also  that  there  was  nothing  in  the  corre- 
spondence that  could  compel  belief  in  the  Messiahship  of 
Jesus  even  on  the  part  of  one  who,  like  the  Baptist,  was 
longing  for  certainty.  "Blessed  is  he,"  said  Jesus, 
"whosoever  shall  find  no  occasion  of  stumbling  in  me." 
It  was  possible,  therefore,  for  any  one  to  see  these  works 
of  Jesus,  even  any  one  who  was  acquainted  with  the 
Messianic  hope  of  the  Old  Testament,  and  yet  not  to 
accept  him  as  the  Messiah. 

The  Messianic  fulfilment  which  Jesus  gave  was  plainly 
not  of  the  nature  of  a  rigorous  demonstration.  One  man 
might  see  in  him  a  convincing  realization  of  certain  Old 
Testament  pictures  of  the  coming  Deliverer,  and  another 


68  THE   INTERPRETATION   OF  THE    BIBLE 

might  discover  an  equally  convincing  lack  of  such  a  realiza- 
tion. To  the  Jews  of  Jesus'  o\vn  day,  with  the  partial 
exception  of  a  small  circle  of  followers,  he  did  not  answer 
to  the  Old  Testament  expectations.  This  fact  clearly 
indicates  that  the  prophetic  pictures  of  the  Messianic 
deliverance  were  various  in  character  and  susceptible  of 
widely  varying  interpretations,  and  it  indicates  also  that 
the  ministry  of  Jesus  was  not  a  Hteral  fulfilment  of  any 
of  these  various  pictures. 

The  most  frequent  IMessianic  references  which  Jesus 
made  to  the  Old  Testament  are  found  in  connection  with 
the  thought  of  his  death.^  And  yet  the  allusions  of  Jesus 
to  his  death  do  not  all  have  Messianic  associations.  He 
sometimes  spoke  of  his  death  as  the  ordinary  fate  of  a 
prophet.  The  "beloved  son"  in  the  parable  of  the  Wicked 
Husbandmen  is  but  the  last  of  a  series  of  messengers  who 
have  been  wounded  or  killed  (Mark  12:1-8).  And 
again,  when  Jesus  said  that  a  prophet  could  not  perish 
out  of  Jerusalem  (Luke  13:33),  he  evidently  thought 
of  his  death  at  the  hands  of  his  countrymen  as  being 
only  that  which  the  bitter  experience  of  a  long  Hne  of 
prophets  might  lead  him  to  expect. 

Of  those  allusions  which  have  a  Messianic  color  some 
are  general,  not  pointing  to  any  particular  Old  Testament 


'  Hiihn,  Die  alttcstamcntlichen  Citato  ttnd  Reminiscenzen  im  N.T., 
p.  269,  counts  fourteen  passages  cited  by  Jesus  as  Messianic,  four  of  which 
are  in  John,  but  says  that  he  applied  directly  to  himself  only  six  of  these 
at  the  most,  viz.,  those  which  speak  of  "the  acceptable  year,"  the  "corner 
stone,"  of  being  "hated  without  ground,"  of  being  "reckoned  with  trans- 
gressors," of  the  "shepherd,"  and  "David's  Lord." 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  INTERPRETED  IN  THE  NEW    69 

passage.^  No  one  of  these  goes  beyond  the  simple  thought 
of  rejection  and  suffering.  The  four  Old  Testament 
passages  concerning  the  Messiah's  fate,  to  which  Jesus 
alluded  in  such  a  manner  that  we  are  able  to  identify  them, 
are  all  hkewise  general  in  character.  Two  of  them  contain 
the  idea  of  rejection,  but  not  necessarily  of  death.^  The 
others  when  taken  with  their  context  imply  death.^  No 
one  of  these  four  is  of  the  nature  of  a  prediction  regarding 
the  Messiah. 

The  passage  in  Psalms  in  regard  to  the  rejected  "stone" 
records  an  experience,  primarily,  though  it  is  uncertain 
whose  experience.  It  is  Messianic  in  the  sense  that  what 
the  psalmist  said  of  himself,  or  of  Israel,  or  of  the  faithful 
in  Israel,  was  applicable  in  the  highest  degree  to  Jesus. 
He  also  was  rejected  and  was  afterward  made  the  corner- 
stone of  God's  hving  temple.  In  Hke  manner,  the  narra- 
tive of  Jonah  describes  an  experience  (in  the  main  imagi- 
nary, if  not  entirely  so).  It  tells  what  befell  a  certain 
prophet,  and  the  unique  fate  of  this  man  was  taken  by 
Jesus  as  in  some  sense  parallel  to  his  own.  The  sign  which 
should  be  given  to  his  generation  was  to  be  a  Jonah-sign. 
But  what  was  that  ?  Luke  gives  no  answer  to  this  question, 
nor  does  Matthew  in  16:4.  In  Matt.  12:38-42  the 
sign  is  made  to  consist  in  the  episode  of  the  sea-monster.* 

'There  are  perhaps  only  five  of  these,  viz.,  Mark  9:12;  14:21; 
8:31;   Matt.  26:54;  Luke  24:44. 

^Ps.  118;  Jonah  1:17.  —  Matt.  12:38-42;  16:4;  Luke  11 :  29-32; 
Matt.  21 :  42. 

^Is.  53;   Zech.  13.  —  Luke  22:37;   Matt.  26:31. 

*  Clemen,  Der  Gebrauch  des  AT.  in  den  neuiestamentlichen  Schriften, 
p.  24,  defends  this  explanation. 


7o  THE   INTERPRETATION   OF  THE   BIBLE 

Had  these  words,  however,  been  a  part  of  the  original  tradi- 
tion, it  would  be  strange  that  Luke  did  not  incorporate 
them  in  his  narrative.  But  further,  the  wholly  spiritual 
use  which  Jesus  uniformly  made  of  the  prophets  increases 
one's  inclination  to  seek  the  meaning  of  the  "sign"  else- 
where than  in  the  passage  about  the  sea-monster.  Jesus 
may  well  have  seen  a  general  parallel  between  his  mission 
and  that  of  Jonah.  As  this  prophet  had  been  sent  to 
preach  to  Nineveh,  so  he,  too,  had  been  sent  to  men  with  a 
message  of  repentance  and  pardon.  Now  the  apparent 
failure  of  the  divine  purpose  in  the  case  of  the  elder  prophet 
and  the  ultimate  realization  of  that  purpose,  may  have 
suggested  to  Jesus  —  when,  through  the  increasing  hostiUty 
of  the  Jews,  the  time  was  ripe  for  such  a  suggestion — that 
his  own  temporary  defeat  would  be  followed  by  triumph. 
In  this  manner,  at  least,  the  use  of  the  "sign"  would  be 
intelligible.  But  even  if  Matthew's  words  be  adopted  as 
giving  the  thought  of  Jesus,  it  is  plain  that  they  are  not 
predictive,  for  Jonah  in  the  story  did  not  die,  but  the 
Jesus  of  history  did. 

The  prophecy  in  Zechariah  (13:  7)  was  cited  by  Jesus 
in  illustrative  justification  of  what  he  had  just  said  about 
the  scattering  of  his  disciples.  It  was  not  adduced  as  a 
Scripture  foreshadowing  of  his  own  death.  The  fifty-third 
chapter  of  Isaiah  appears  to  have  been  alluded  to  when 
Jesus  said  that  he  must  be  numbered  with  transgressors. 
Yet  he  cited  this  word  as  one  that  might  apply  to  many 
others  as  well  as  to  himself.  How  Jesus  regarded  this 
chapter  of  Isaiah  as  a  whole,  in  what  sense  he  thought 
it  prophetic  of  himself,  we  cannot  infer  from  this  citation. 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  INTERPRETED  IN  THE  NEW    7 1 

Such  were  the  words  of  Jesus  regarding  a  Messianic 
element  in  the  Old  Testament.  He  saw  there  foreshadow- 
ings  of  his  work  and  fate,  but  these  foreshadowings  were 
general  in  character.  He  saw  them  in  the  unrealized 
aspirations  of  the  great  teachers  of  Israel,  in  the  unfulfilled 
visions  of  God's  reign  among  men.  He  saw  them  in  the 
fate  of  the  prophets  in  whose  hne  he  was  conscious  that 
he  himself  stood.  But  there  is  no  evidence  that  Jesus 
saw  a  predictive  element  in  the  Old  Testament;  no  evi- 
dence that,  in  his  thought,  any  Old  Testament  author  had 
foreseen  his  historical  appearance,  the  circumstances  of  his 
ministry,  his  death  and  resurrection.  According  to  his 
view,  the  Messianic  foreshadowing  was  altogether  unlike 
the  idea  of  prediction.  It  was  spiritual,  not  outward  and 
mechanical.  It  belonged  to  the  ancient  revelation  in  its 
entirety,  to  the  Law  and  the  Psalms  as  well  as  to  the 
Prophets:  it  was  by  no  means  limited  to  a  number  of 
specific  sayings  which  mentioned  the  coming  one,  or  were 
supposed  to  give  details  of  his  ministry. 

The  Messianic  foreshadowing  of  the  old  revelation, 
according  to  Jesus,  consisted  in  its  imperfection  coupled 
with  its  longing  for  a  more  perfect  manifestation  of  God ; 
and  therefore,  as  Jesus  was  the  conscious  possessor  of  a 
perfect  knowledge  of  the  divine  will,  he  was  able  perfectly 
to  appreciate  this  foreshadowing.  His  new  interpretation 
of  the  Messianic  element  in  the  Old  Testament  was  not 
based  on  a  historical  knowledge  unlike  that  of  his  day 
and  superior  to  it,  but  rather  on  his  spiritual  vision. 
He  knew  the  prophets  because  he  was  himself  a  prophet ; 
he  understood  their  aspirations,  for  his  own  were  like 
them,  only  deeper  and  more  pure. 


72  THE    INTERPRETATION   OF   THE    BIBLE 

And  what  qualified  Jesus  to  interpret  the  ^Messianic 
element  in  the  Old  Testament,  let  it  be  said  in  conclusion, 
was  his  chief  qualification  also  for  the  interpretation  of  all 
besides  this  element.  He  did  not  have  a  critical  knowledge 
of  Hebrew  or  Greek,  or  the  origin  of  the  Old  Testament 
writings.  He  apparently  accepted  the  current  Aramaic 
and  Greek  translations  of  the  Old  Testament,  even  as  others 
did.  Of  what  in  modern  times  is  regarded  as  technical 
qualification  for  scientific  exegesis,  he  had,  of  course,  no 
more  than  had  the  generation  to  which  he  belonged.  But 
the  lack  of  critical  knowledge  was  more  than  outweighed  by 
his  unique  spiritual  penetration,  by  his  perfect  compre- 
hension of  the  scope  of  the  entire  Old  Testament,  and  by 
his  unerring  judgment  of  moral  values.^  With  this  spirit- 
ual equipment  he  gave,  even  in  the  midst  of  an  uncritical 
and  unhistorical  age,  an  interpretation  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, of  the  great  and  vital  questions  of  revelation,  which, 
in  its  proportion,  its  appreciation  of  the  past,  and  in  the 
certainty  of  its  results,  still  furnishes  to  Christian  scholar- 
ship an  unapproached  ideal. 

'  This  spiritual  equipment  saved  the  interpretation  of  Jesus  from  the 
errors  of  the  rabbis.  Clemen,  op.  cit.,  p.  60,  asserts  that  there  is  not  a 
single  instance  of  artificial  rabbinic  exegesis,  or  a  historically  false  ap- 
plication, in  all  the  quotations  of  Jesus  from  the  O.  T.  Some  may  regard 
this  statement  as  a  little  too  sweeping  in  view  of  Matt.  22  :  37  (comp.  Toy, 
Quotations  in  the  N.  T.,  pp.  59-60),  but  it  is  hardly  possible  to  lay  too 
much  emphasis  on  the  true  exegetical  value  of  the  equipment  of  Jesus. 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  INTERPRETED  IN  THE  NEW    73 


//.   Interpretation  of  the  Old  Testament  by  the  Writers  of 

the  New 

The  authors  of  the  New  Testament  may  be  represented, 
for  our  present  purpose,  by  Paul,  the  first  and  fourth  evan- 
gelists, and  the  unknown  man  or  woman  who  composed 
the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  These  four  make  by  far  the 
largest  use  of  the  Old  Testament,*  and  since  we  judge  of 
the  exegesis  of  New  Testament  writers  chiefly  by  their 
quotations  from  the  Old  Testament,  the  writers  designated 
afford  ample  ground  for  a  satisfactory  view  of  the  earliest 
Christian  interpretation.  There  are  no  characteristics 
of  that  interpretation  which  are  not  found  in  them. 

These  writers  whose  exegesis  we  are  to  consider,  and  all 
other  New  Testament  writers  as  well,  interpreted  the  Old 
Testament  at  second  hand,  through  the  Greek  translation, 
probably  to  some  extent  also  through  an  Aramaic  version, 
and  not  directly  from  the  Hebrew  original.^  It  is  doubtful  1/ 
whether  any  New  Testament  writer  except  Paul  was  ac- 
quainted with  Hebrew,  and  in  seven  cases  out  of  eight 

'  Swete,  Introduction  to  the  O.  T.  in  Creek,  p.  386,  counts  approximately 
160  quotations  from  the  O.  T.  in  the  New,  and  of  these  much  the  larger 
part  are  found  in  the  four  writers  mentioned  above.  To  Paul  are  ascribed 
78  quotations,  to  Matthew  46,  to  John  12,  and  to  Hebrews  28.  Hiihn,  Die 
alttestamentlichen  Citate,  etc.,  p.  269,  with  a  somewhat  different  standard, 
counts  286  quotations,  of  which  he  ascribes  88  to  Paul,  52  to  Matthew,  15 
to  John,  and  36  to  Hebrews.  Bohl,  Alttestamentliche  Citate  int  N.  T., 
finds  but  17  quotations  in  the  Catholic  Epistles  and  one  in  the  Apocalypse. 

^  On  the  literary  significance  of  this  dependence  on  the  Septuagint,  see 
Swete,  op.  cit.,  p.  404. 


74  THE   INTERPRETATION   OF  THE   BIBLE 

he  followed  the  Septuagint/  sometimes  even  when  that 
rendering  is  seriously  defective.  This  fact  brings  out  one 
broad  difference  between  the  exegesis  of  Paul's  day  and 
that  of  the  present.  No  interpreter  of  that  time  seems 
to  have  thought  it  questionable  to  depend  on  a  translation 
of  the  Old  Testament,  while  at  present  no  interpreter 
would  have  weight  who  did  not  go  to  the  original  sources. 
The  historical  sense  was  practically  wanting  in  New  Testa- 
ment times.  As  one  has  said,  scientific  interpretation  is 
as  truly  a  human  and  modern  science  as  astronomy  or 
chemistry.^  But  we  cannot  demand  of  the  New  Testament 
writers  that  their  exegesis  should  be  in  advance  of  their 
times.  It  is  to  be  regarded  as  a  product  of  the  first  century 
and  estimated  simply  at  its  intrinsic  worth. 

One  other  general  remark  should  be  made  in  this  place. 
The  New  Testament  writers,  with  perhaps  only  one  ex- 
ception, were  Jews,  yet  their  exegesis  was  not  just  the  same 
as  that  of  their  Jewish  contemporaries  who  did  not  accept 
Jesus  as  the  Messiah.  The  New  Testament  writers  were 
not  deeply  influenced,  as  will  appear  in  the  course  of  this 
chapter,  by  Jesus'  own  method  of  using  the  Old  Testament, 
but  still  their  general  point  of  view  was  radically  changed 
by  him.     He  was  the  fulfilment  of  the  promise  made  to  the 

•  Sanday,  Internatioual  Critical  Com.  on  Romans,  following  Kautsch, 
counts  some  eighty-four  O.  T.  quotations  in  Paul  and  regards  seventy  of 
these  as  taken  directly  from  the  Septuagint,  or  as  differing  from  it  in  a  very 
slight  degree.  Variations  would  be  natural  if  he  quoted  from  memory. 
Vollmer,  Die  aUtestamentlichen  Citate  bei  Paulus,  p.  38  f.,  assumes  that 
Paul  made  use  of  some  sort  of  a  collection  of  Scripture  texts,  and  if  he  did 
this,  his  deviation  from  the  Alexandrian  version  would  be  explained. 

'  Toy,  Quotations  in  tlie  N.  T.,  p.  xxv. 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  INTERPRETED  IN  THE  NEW   75 

fathers,  and  it  was  inevitable  that  his  appearance  should 
affect  their  reading  of  the  Old  Testament.  They  had  also 
become  charged  with  a  practical  religious  spirit  through 
their  contact  with  Jesus,  and  it  was  natural  that  this  gave  to 
their  interpretation  of  the  Scriptures  greater  directness, 
sanity,  and  spirituality  than  belonged  to  contemporary  Jew- 
ish interpretation.  If,  technically  speaking,  their  method 
showed  no  advance  upon  that  of  their  day,  yet  its  practical 
use  was  so  tempered  and  directed  by  the  realities  of  the 
Christian  revelation  that  they  formed  a  group  by  themselves, 
practically  far  in  advance  of  their  most  gifted  Jewish  con- 
temporaries. 

In  attempting  now  to  characterize  New  Testament 
interpretation,  we  begin  with  what  is  perhaps  its  most  con- 
spicuous feature,  viz.  its  disregard  of  the  original  context 
and  purpose  of  the  various  Old  Testament  passages  with 
which  it  deals.  This  disregard  was  common  to  all  who 
used  the  Scriptures  both  in  the  Jev^dsh  and  the  Christian 
Church.  It  went  naturally  with  the  ancient  conception  of 
an  inspired  writing,  a  conception  that  separated  it  from  the 
life  of  those  among  whom  it  made  its  appearance.  If  a 
book  is  regarded  as  a  collection  of  oracles,  then  the  rela- 
tion of  its  different  utterances  to  each  other  and  their 
meaning  for  those  who  first  heard  them  can  be  quite  neg- 
lected. And  this  was  done  in  a  large  measure  by  New 
Testament  writers. 

Consider  first  the  usage  of  Paul  in  this  particular.  In 
his  argument  that  the  call  of  the  Gentiles  into  the  king- 
dom of  Christ  was  according  to  the  divine  purpose,  he 
cited  the  words  of  Hosea  which  were  spoken  not  concern- 


76  THE   INTERPRETATION   OF  THE   BIBLE 

ing  the  Gentiles,  but  concerning  the  Jews  (Rom.  9 :  24- 
26).  The  language,  taken  apart  from  the  context,  is 
indeed  quite  applicable:  "I  will  call  that  my  people, 
which  was  not  my  people.  And  her  beloved,  that  was  not 
beloved " ;  but  obviously  the  original  context  must  be 
completely  ignored  to  make  the  passage  suit  the  argument 
of  the  apostle.  Nor  can  we  say  that  Israel  at  the  time  when 
Hosea  wrote  had  turned  from  Jehovah,  and  was  not  better 
than  the  Gentiles.  For  Paul  argues  (Rom.  11  :i)  that, 
even  in  his  own  time,  when  the  great  majority  of  Israel 
had  refused  to  hearken  to  the  Gospel,  they  were  still 
God's  people.  He  had  not  cast  them  off.  They  were 
beloved  for  the  fathers'  sake,  and  called  with  a  calling  of 
which  God  did  not  repent  (Rom.  11:28-29). 

Again,  in  Rom.  10:6-8,  Paul  quotes  and  comments 
upon  Deut.  30:12-13.  The  Deuteronomist,  in  illustrat- 
ing the  thought  that  God's  commandment  was  not  too 
hard  for  the  people,  said :  "It  is  not  in  heaven,  that  thou 
shouldest  say.  Who  will  go  up  for  us  to  heaven,  and  bring  it 
unto  us,  and  make  us  to  hear  it  that  we  may  do  it  ?  Neither 
is  it  beyond  the  sea,  that  thou  shouldest  say.  Who  will 
go  over  the  sea  for  us,  and  bring  it  unto  us,  and  make  us 
to  hear  it  that  we  may  do  it?"  Here  we  have  simply  a 
figurative  expression  of  the  thought  that  the  command- 
ment is  not  impossible.  But  Paul,  while  retaining  the 
thought  of  the  nearness  of  the  word,  applies  the  passage 
to  the  Gospel.  The  ascent  into  heaven  was  to  bring  Christ 
down,  not  the  Law;  the  descent  into  the  abyss  was  to 
bring  Christ  up. 

It   is   to   be  noticed  that  Paul  substituted   a  descent 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  INTERPRETED  IN  THE  NEW    77 

into  the  abyss  for  a  going  "beyond  the  sea,"  which 
the  original  has.  It  is  true  that  in  the  Old  Testament 
the  sea  is  an  "  abyss,"  ^  but  the  change  from  a  journey 
across  the  sea  to  a  going  down  mto  the  sea  must  appar- 
ently be  regarded  as  a  free  modification  by  Paul  to  suit 
the  passage  to  Christ's  descent  into  Hades  (Eph.  4:9). 
Further,  while  the  original  in  Deuteronomy  contemplates 
the  doing  of  the  Law,  Paul  finds  in  it  the  contrasted  thought 
of  faith.  Thus  his  use  of  the  passage  appears  to  be  quite 
foreign  to  its  primitive  sense.  It  is  plain  that  there  was  a 
certain  parallehsm  between  the  situation  of  the  ancient 
Jews  in  relation  to  the  Law  and  that  of  the  Jews  in  Paul's 
day  in  relation  to  Christ ;  but  his  language  appears  to 
affirm  more  than  a  mere  parallelism. 

Or  consider  Paul's  use  of  Is.  45:23  in  Rom.  14:11, 
The  prophet  represents  God  as  calling  all  men  to 
look  unto  him  for  salvation,  and  not  unto  idols.  He  sol- 
emnly affirms  that  every  knee  shall  at  length  bow  unto  him, 
and  every  tongue  shall  swear,  i.e.  shall  swear  by  him,  and 
not  by  other  gods.  The  apostle,  however,  uses  the  language 
in  an  entirely  different  sense.  He  quotes  it  in  proof  that 
all  men  shall  give  account  of  themselves  unto  God  in  the 
last  judgment.  It  is  transferred  from  this  age  and  world 
to  the  coming  age,  and  is  made  to  teach  not  the  con- 
version of  men  to  God,  but  their  final  confession  ^  to  him 
of  the  deeds  done  in  the  flesh.^ 

'  Toy,  Quotations  in  the  N.  T.,  p.  149. 

^  The  Hebrew  has  "swear"  (V3c'n).  Whether  Paul  himself  sub- 
stituted "confess"  (i^ofioXoyi^a-eTat.),  or  followed  an  Aramaic  version 
(the  Septuagint  has  d/xeiTai),  it  is  not  possible  to  say. 

'  Other  passages  in  Paul  illustrating  his  disregard  for  the  context  of  the 


78  THE   INTERPRETATION   OF   THE   BIBLE 

If  we  turn  now  to  the  evangelists  and  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews,  we  find  that  they  also  were  indifferent  to  the 
original  purport  of  the  passage  that  they  quoted.  They 
dealt  with  the  7vpr_dsoi  the  Old  Testament  rather  than  its 
ideas.  This  disregard  of  the  historical  meaning  of  Old 
Testament  words  is  particularly  striking  in  the  applica- 
tion of  various  passages  to  Christ,  especially  by  Matthew. 
Thus  it  is  said  that  the  infant  Jesus  was  taken  to  Egypt 
and  remained  there  till  the  death  of  Herod,  that  the  word  of 
Hosea  might  be  fulfilled  :  "Out  of  Egypt  have  I  called  my 
son"  (Matt.  2:15).  But  Hosea  was  referring  to  a  fact 
of  the  distant  past,  the  calling  of  Israel  out  of  the  house  of 
bondage.  He  made  no  allusion  to  the  future.  There  was 
in  his  simple  historical  statement  nothing  to  be  "fulfilled." 
Moreover,  the  parallelism  between  Israel's  departure  out  of 
Egypt  and  the  incident  recorded  by  Matthew  is  quite 
superficial  and  incidental.  Jesus  was  delivered  from  the 
wrath  of  man  by  being  taken  into  Egypt,  while  Israel  was 
delivered  from  man's  wrath  by  being  called  oul  of  Egypt. 
The  one  single  point  of  resemblance  was  geographical  — 
both  came  out  of  Egypt. 

Again,  the  evangelist  evidently  approved  of  the  answer 
given  to  Herod  by  the  scribes  when  they  were  asked 
where  the  Christ  should  be  born.  They  said  it  should  be  in 
Bethlehem,  and  cited  in  proof  a  verse  from  the  prophet 
Micah  (Matt.  2  : 5-7).  Now  the  essential  point  with  Mi- 
cah  was  that  the  coming  Deliverer  would  be  of  the  house 
of  David.     From  his  point  of  view,  therefore,  if  thai  was 

original  are,  e.g.,  Rom.   1:17;   2:24;    10:19;    11:9-10;   i    Cor.   2:9; 
14:21;   15:54. 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  INTERPRETED  IN  THE  NEW    79 

realized,  it  made  little  or  no  difference  where  he  was  born. 
But  the  town  of  Bethlehem  was  naturally  mentioned  by 
the  prophet,  because  that  had  once  been  David's  home. 
Thus  the  scribes  based  their  answer  upon  an  unimportant 
detail  of  the  prophecy. 

A  single  further  illustration  may  be  added  from  Matthew. 
He  says  that  Judas  took  back  to  the  chief  priests  the  money 
he  had  received  for  the  betrayal  of  Jesus,  and  cast  it  into 
the  sanctuary.  Then  the  priests,  since  this  was  blood- 
money,  declared  that  it  might  not  be  used  for  sacred  pur- 
poses, and  bought  with  it  the  potter's  field  as  a  burial-place 
for  strangers.  This,  he  says,  was  the  fulfilment  of  the 
words  of  Jeremiah.^  Now,  according  to  the  original,  the 
prophet  received  thirty  pieces  of  silver  from  unfaithful 
Israel  as  pay  for  the  instruction  he  had  given  from  God. 
This  was  appropriately  cast  back  by  the  prophet  into  the 
treasury  of  the  house  of  Jehovah,  whose  guardians  thus 
lightly  esteemed  his  word.  The  points  of  resemblance 
between  the  Judas  incident  and  the  scene  in  Zechariah 
are  the  number  "thirty"  and  the  word  "potter."^  The 
prophet  does  not  mention  the  "^ottefs  field,''  or  say  what 
use  was  made  of  the  money.  In  one  scene,  it  is  God's 
own  prophet  who  receives  the  money,  and  he  casts  it  into 
the  treasury  out  of  proper  regard  for  the  dignity  of  God ; 
in  the  other  case,  it  is  the  betrayer  of  Jesus  who  receives 
the  money,  and  he  casts  it  into  the  treasury  out  of  remorse. 
In  Zechariah  the  money  is  represented  as  the  shameful 
estimate  of  the  value  of  Jehovah's  instruction  on  the  part 

*  The  passage  is  found  in  Zech.  11 :  13. 

^  Marti,  Hand-Kommentar,  reads  "treasure"  instead  of  "potter." 


8o  THE   INTERPRETATION   OF  THE   BIBLE 

of  Israel ;  in  Matthew  it  is  the  price  of  blood,  the  sum  paid 
for  the  betrayal  of  a  man  who  was  supposed  to  be  an 
enemy  of  God.  It  is  difficult,  in  view  of  these  facts,  to 
think  that  the  passage  in  Zechariah  would  have  been  used 
by  the  evangelist  had  it  not  been  for  resemblances  between 
it  and  the  Judas  incident  which  seem  to  us  now  to  be  alto- 
gether superficial. 

To  the  illustrations  which  have  been  given,  a  single  one 
may  be  added  from  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  The 
author  of  this  cites  from  Is.  8  :  i8._  The  verse  reads 
as  follows:  "Behold,  I  and  the  children  whom  Jehovah 
hath  given  me  are  for  signs  and  for  wonders  in  Israel 
from  Jehovah  of  hosts,  who  dwelleth  in  Mount  Zion." 
The  "children"  arc  the  two  sons  of  the  prophet,  Shear- 
jashub  and  Maher-shalal-hash-baz  (Is.  7:3;  8:1). 
The  author  of  Hebrews  cites  merely  the  subject  of  the 
sentence,  the  words  "Behold,  I  and  the  children  whom 
God  hath  given  me."  He  cjuotes  these  words  to  show 
the  oneness  of  Jesus  and  his  followers,  and  on  the  basis 
of  that  to  argue  that  he  partook  of  flesh  and  blood  (Heb. 
2:13-14).  It  is  impossible  to  discover  any  IMessianic 
allusion  in  the  original,  or  any  reference  to  the  disciples 
of  Christ,  or  any  foreshadowing  of  the  relation  between 
Christ  and  his  followers,  and  least  of  all  to  discover  any 
basis  for  an  argument  for  the  incarnation.  Disregard  of 
the  historical  connection  and  significance  of  Scripture  could 
not  well  go  to  greater  lengths  than  in  this  case.^ 

Yet,  as  has  already  been  intimated,  this  feature  of  New 
Testament    exegesis    is    not    surprising.      Paul   and   the 

'  Comp.  Ilcb.  1 :  8-9;    2:6-8;    3:7-11. 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  INTERPRETED  IN  THE  NEW   8 1 

Other  New  Testament  writers  were  "true  children  of  their 
age,  who  thought  and  wrote  in  accordance  with  the  stand- 
ards and  the  point  of  view  which  were  then  recognized." 
The  simple  fact  to  be  noted  is  that  this  feature  of  their 
exegesis  would  be  surprising  if  reproduced  in  our  day. 

The  interpretation  of  the  Old  Testament  by  the  writers 
of  the  New  is  marked,  in  the  second  place,  though  in  a 
less  striking  manner,  by  a  tendency  to  depart  from  the 
primary  meaning  of  the  text  and  find  its  chief  significance 
in  a  hidden  sense.  As  compared  with  Philo's  interpreta- 
tion, the  adherence  of  New  Testament  writers  to  the 
literal  sense  is  most  remarkable.  It  was  also  much  more 
constant  and  close  than  that  of  the  Palestinian  rabbis  or 
the  early  Church  Fathers.  Nevertheless,  their  exegesis 
was  by  no  means  free  from  a  tendency  to  go  behind  the 
obvious  meaning  of  the  letter.  Thus,  e.g.,  in  the  humane 
precept  of  the  Law  that  an  ox  when  treading  out  the  corn 
should  not  be  muzzled  (Deut.  25:4),  Paul  found  an 
argument  that  the  Christian  minister  was  entitled  to  sup- 
port from  those  whom  he  served  (i  Cor.  9  :  8-10).  Indeed, 
he  appears  to  have  thought  that  this  ancient  precept  was 
written  altogether  for  the  use  to  which  he  put  it.  At  any 
rate,  he  saw  in  it  another  meaning  than  the  primary  and 
literal  one. 

Once,  but  once  only,  Paul  confessedly  allegorizes  a 
passage  of  Old  Testament  history.  Sarah  and  Hagar, 
thefreewoman  and  the  handmaid,  are  two  "covenants"  — 
one  the  covenant  of  works  from  Mt.  Sinai,  under  which 
covenant  were  the  Jews  of  his  day  who  rejected  Christ ; 
the  other  the  covenant  of  faith,  under  which  were  all  who 


82  THE   INTERPRETATION   OF  THE   BIBLE 

accepted  the  Gospel.  Paul  did  not  reject  the  historical 
sense  of  this  passage  in  Genesis,  but  found  in  it  another 
also,  of  present  and  extensive  import.  This  is,  indeed, 
allegorical  interpretation,  the  same  in  principle  as  that  of 
Philo  or  that  of  the  Greek  philosophers,  but  it  is  character- 
ized by  naturalness  and  sobriety.  It  is  suggestive  as  a 
historical  comparison,  but  the  apostle  does  not  appear  to 
me  to  give  it  as  a  mere  comparison.  It  is  rather  as  a  part 
of  the  divinely  purposed  teaching  of  a  certain  historical 
incident. 

Since  Paul  explained  one  historical  event  of  the  Old 
Testament  allegorically,  it  seems  likely  that  he  admitted 
the  possibility  of  applying  the  principle  of  allegory  else- 
where ;  but  the  fact  that  his  letters  show  no  other  unmis- 
takable illustration  obviously  suggests  either  that  he  did 
not  feel  himself  competent  to  unfold  the  allegorical  mean- 
ing of  Scripture,  or,  what  is  more  probable,  that  he  was 
better  satisfied  on  the  whole  to  give  his  readers  the  plain 
primary  sense  of  the  text.^ 

This  going  beneath  the  obvious  sense  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment text  after  a  hidden  meaning  is  abundantly  illustrated 

'Cone,  Gospel  Criticism  and  Historical  Christianity,  p.  314,  says  that 
Paul  "  throughout  his  epistles  treats  the  Old  Testament  allegorically 
and  typologically."  Vollmer,  Die  alttestamcntlichen  Citate  bei  Pauhis,  pp. 
57,  6g,  in  saying  that  Paul  "appealed  to  a  pneumatic  sense  of  the  text 
instead  of  the  grammatical,"  and  in  the  statement  that  Paul  regarded 
the  interpretation  of  Scripture  as  the  result  of  a  special  charism,  pos- 
sessed only  by  the  "  perfect,"  appears  to  occupy  about  the  same  ground  as 
Dr.  Cone.  This  view  appears  to  be  extreme,  as,  in  the  opposite  direction 
and  in  a  lesser  degree,  that  of  Sanday,  Commentary  on  Romans,  pp. 
302-307,  who  says  that  Paul  almost  invariably  takes  the  literal  meaning 
of  Old  Testament  language. 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  INTERPRETED  IN  THE  NEW   83 

in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  Thus  the  reference  in. 
Genesis  to  Mclchizedek,  who  appears  suddenly  for  an 
hour  in  the  history  of  Abraham  and  then  disappears  utterly, 
was  regarded  as  mysteriously  significant.  It  had  been  so 
regarded  by  the  author  of  the  iioth  Psalm.*  To  the 
writer  of  Hebrews,  the  everlasting  permanency  of  Melchiz- 
edek's  priesthood  followed  from  the  fact  that  he  has, 
in  Scripture,  "neither  beginning  of  days  nor  end  of  life" 
(Heb.  7:3),  and  his  appearance  was  regarded  as  predic- 
tive of  Christ  and  of  his  eternal  priesthood  (Heb.  7:11,15). 
Again,  the  injunction  to  Moses  to  make  the  tabernacle 
and  its  furniture  according  to  the  "pattern"  which  had 
been  shown  to  him  in  the  mount  was  taken  by  the  author 
of  Hebrews  as  fraught  with  a  most  profound  meaning 
(Heb.  8 : 5,  59).  He  found  in  it  a  doctrine  similar  to 
Plato's  doctrine  of  ideas.  It  taught  him  that  there  is  a 
heavenly  tabernacle  (Heb.  9:  n),  supplied  with  the  vari- 
ous articles  which  were  copied  in  the  earthly  house 
(Heb.  9  :  23),  and  into  the  holy  place  of  this  upper  taber- 
nacle Christ  entered  in  a  manner  exactly  corresponding 
to  that  of  the  high  priest  on  earth  when  he  entered  in  to 
make  an  oiTering  for  Israel  (Heb.  9:12,  24).  Out  of 
the  hidden  sense  of  these  two  passages  in  Genesis  and 
Exodus,  the  author  of  Hebrews  drew  the  most  charac- 
teristic part  of  his  thought  regarding  the  priesthood  of 
Christ.^    The   Gospels  and   Catholic  Epistles  afford  no 

'  Probably  Maccabean,  second  century  before  Christ ;  Duhm  and  some 
other  scholars  regard  it  as  addressed  to  Simon.  The  first  four  verses  are 
an  acrostic  and  give  this  name. 

^  Westcott,  The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  p.  480,  says  that  the  writer  of 
the  Epistle  everywhere  assumes  a  spiritual  meaning  in  the  whole  record 


84  THE   INTERPRETATION   OF  THE   BIBLE 

parallel  to  the  allegorizing  or  spiritualizing  of  the  Old 
Testament  by  Paul  and  the  author  of  Hebrews. 

Before  passing  to  the  last  conspicuous  feature  of  New 
Testament  interpretation,  brief  reference  may  be  made 
to  a  matter  of  subordinate  importance,  viz.  the  affinity  with 
rabbinic  exegesis  in  its  use  of  Jewish  tradition  or  legend. 
The  most  striking  illustrations  of  this  affinity  are  found  in 
Paul.  Thus  the  "rock"  from  which  Israel  had  water  in 
the  wilderness  is  said  to  have  followed  them  from  place  to 
place  and  to  have  been  the  Messiah  (i  Cor.  10:4).  The 
Law,  Paul  says  in  Galatians  (3  :  19),  was  ordained  through 
angels,  and  the  magicians  who  withstood  Moses  were 
Jannes  and  Jambres  (2  Tim.  3  :  8).^  The  significant  thing 
is  not  that  Paul's  writings  show  traces  of  the  influence 
of  Jewish  legend,  but  that  these  traces  are  so  extremely 
few. 

It  was  said  at  the  outset  that  the  New  Testament  writers 
as  interpreters  of  the  Old  Testament  were  practically  far 
in  advance  of  their  Jewish  contemporaries  by  virtue  of 
the  religious  influence  of  Jesus.  They  grasped  its  main 
purport.  They  ceased  to  put  an  undue  estimate  upon 
the  Law  {e.g.  Gal.  4:9).  They  tested  the  Old  Testa- 
ment ethics  by  the  new  spirit  within  thcm.^  In  so  far 
they  proved  themselves  worthy  disciples  of  Jesus.     But 

of  the  O.  T.  Of  the  quotations  in  Hebrews  he  says  (p.  481)  that  "they 
are  not  brought  forward  in  order  to  prove  anything,  but  to  indicate  the 
correspondences  which  exist  between  the  several  stages  of  the  divine  pur- 
pose from  age  to  age."  But  it  seems  obvious  that  the  author  saw  much 
more  than  an  historical  illustration  in  Ex.  25 :  40. 

'  Comp.  Acts  7:  20,  22. 

^  See  Drummond,  Ilibbcrt  Lectures,  1894,  p.  74. 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  INTERPRETED  IN  THE  NEW    85 

in  another  department  —  the  Messiahship  of  Jesus  — ■ 
their  use  of  the  Old  Testament  departed  in  a  most  strik- 
ing manner  from  that  of  the  Master,  and  it  was  their  use, 
not  his,  which  influenced  the  interpretation  of  the  Church 
in  subsequent  centuries.  He  saw  a  foreshadowing  of 
himself  and  his  work ;  they  saw  predictions.  The  fore- 
shadowing which  he  saw  was  general  and  spiritual  in 
character ;  the  predictions  which  they  found  were  particular, 
and  included  minute  external  circumstances.  His  allu- 
sions to  a  Messianic  element  in  the  Old  Testament  never 
suggest  the  Messiah's  preexistence,  and  never  tend  toward 
a  blending  of  the  Messiah  and  Jehovah;  but  in  their 
treatment  of  the  Messianic  element  both  these  things  are 
done.  While,  therefore,  the  New  Testament  writers  agree 
with  Jesus  in  regarding  his  revelation  as  a  fulfilment  of 
the  Old  Testament,  their  departure  from  his  view  of  the 
Messianic  element  and  his  fulfilment  of  it  is  one  of  the 
most  significant  and  least  appreciated  features  of  their 
interpretation  of  the  Scriptures.  To  a  brief  illustration 
of  this  point  we  turn  now  in  concluding  the  present 
chapter. 

In  his  first  letter  to  the  Corinthians  Paul  gives  us  a 
glimpse  into  the  character  of  his  argument  for  Christ. 
"I  delivered  unto  you,"  he  says,  "first  of  all  that  which 
also  I  received;  that  Christ  died  for  our  sins  according 
to  the  Scriptures;  and  that  he  was  buried;  and  that  he 
hath  been  raised  on  the  third  day  according  to  the  Scrip- 
tures" (i  Cor.  15:3-4).  We  are  not  told  in  what  pas- 
sages of  the  Old  Testament  he  found  proof  that  Christ 
died  for  our  sins  and  that  he  was  raised  on  the  third  day, 


86  THE    INTERPRETATION    OF   THE   BIBLE 

but  it  is  plain  that  he  was  in  the  habit  of  appealing  to  the 
Scripture  in  support  of  these  points.  We  may  well  say 
that  the  first  of  these  points  is  foreshadowed  in  the  account 
of  the  "suffering  servant"  in  Is.  53,  but  the  second,  a 
particular  external  circumstance,  appears  not  to  have  even  ,'1 
a  clear  foreshadowing  in  the  Old  Testament,  not  to  say 
prediction.  That  the  apostle  went  to  the  Old  Testament 
for  proof  that  Jesus  was  raised  on  the  third  day  rather 
than  to  historical  evidence  of  the  fact,  illustrates  in  a  strik- 
ing manner  the  importance  which  he  attributed  to  the 
current  method  of  demonstrating  the  Messiahship  of 
Jesus.^ 

Again,  the  author  of  Hebrews  in  setting  forth  the 
superangelic  dignity  of  Christ,  ascribes  to  him  certain 
words  which  in  the  Old  Testament  were  addressed  to 
Jehovah  (Heb.  i  :  10;  Ps.  102  :  25  f.).  In  this  he  de- 
parted from  the  Old  Testament  usage,  where  the  name 
Jehovah  is  never  given  to  the  Messiah,^  departed  also 
from  the  usage  of  Jesus,  who  never  referred  to  himself 
an  Old  Testament  word  which  in  the  original  concerned 
Jehovah.' 

In  Matthew  and  John  this  departure  from  the  INIessianic 
interpretation  of  Jesus  is  still  more  conspicuous  than  in 
Paul  and  the  author  of  Hebrews.  They  speak  of  various 
things  as  done  in  the  case  of  Jesus,  or  as  done  by  him, 
in  order  that  the  Scripture  might  be  fulfilled  {e.g.  Matt. 

'  See  Gal.  3:  13;  Eph.  4:8-10  as  further  illustrations  of  the  point  in 
hand. 

^  This  departure  was  made  easier  by  the  Greek  translation  of  the  Old 
Testament,  where  the  Hebrew  tetragram  (nvT)  is  rendered  by  Kvpios. 

'  Comp.  also  Hcb.  10:5-7. 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  INTERPRETED  IN  THE  NEW    87 

2:15;  8:17;  21:5;  John  19:28).  Accordingly,  they  re- 
garded certain  words  of  Scripture  as  predictive,  and 
believed  that  the  circumstances  of  his  life  were  divinely 
overruled  to  the  end  that  these  predictions  might  be 
fulfilled.  And  these  circumstances  included  such  details 
as  the  cry  "I  thirst"  (John  19:28),  the  lance-thrust 
(John  19 :  37),  and  the  distribution  of  the  garments  of 
Jesus  (John  19:24),  also  the  circumstance  that  his  legs 
were  not  broken  (John  19:36). 

This  conception  of  Messianic  prophecy  is  obviously 
altogether  unlike  the  conception  that  Jesus  had.  His 
fulfilment  was  from  within,  spiritual,  and  quite  inde- 
pendent of  the  outward  details  of  his  career.  What  the 
evangelist  regarded  as  fulfilment  was  something  external 
and  unspiritual.  We  may  liken  the  demonstrative  power 
of  Jesus'  fulfilment  to  the  sun  shining  in  its  strength. 
This  power  is  original,  self-evidencing,  and  eternal.  By 
the  side  of  this,  the  demonstrative  force  of  the  kind  of 
argument  which  was  current  among  the  disciples  is  a 
sort  of  will-of-the-wisp. 

It  is  not  strange,  indeed,  that  they  failed  to  rise  to  the 
high  level  of  the  thought  of  Jesus.  Even  the  Church  of 
later  centuries  has  failed,  though  having  fuller  knowledge 
than  they  possessed.  We  are  not  concerned,  however,  to 
explain  their  departure  from  the  Messianic  interpretation 
of  Jesus,  but  only  to  record  it. 


1/ 


CHAPTER  IV 

SCRIPTURE    INTERPRETATION    FROM    CLEMENT    OF    ROME 
TO   IREN^US 

A  LETTER  written  in  the  name  of  the  Church  at  Rome 
in  reply  to  a  request  for  counsel,  written  probably  by  the 
bishop  of  the  Church  about  the  year  loo  a.d.,  may  be 
taken,  as  far  as  it  bears  on  the  subject  of  interpretation 
at  all,  to  reflect  the  views  which  were  then  current  among 
the  Christians  of  that  city.  It  is  more  significant  than 
a  simple  private  epistle.  The  author  of  this  letter  (the 
so-called  First  Epistle  of  Clement)  intimates  that  the  in- 
terpretation of  Scripture,  by  which  he  usually  means  the 
Old  Testament,  depends  upon  a  divine  gift  of  knowledge 
(yi'6!)cn<i.  See  40,  41).  He  and  his  readers  and  all 
Christians  are  assumed  to  share  in  this  gift,  this  ability 
to  discover  the  will  of  the  Lord  for  the  Christian  Church 
in  the  teaching  of  the  Old  Testament.^  The  method  by 
which  Christians  come  into  the  possession  of  this  knowl- 
edge is  not  indicated.  The  Old  Testament,  according 
to  Clement,  is  a  Christian  book  by  virtue  of  its  predictive 
character,  and  also  by  virtue  of  the  fact  that  Christ  him- 
self is  thought  of  as  speaking  in  it.  The  variety  and 
extent  of  its  predictive  element  seems  to  be  almost  un- 
limited.    Even  the  harlot  Rahab  was  a  prophetess,  fore- 

'  See  Wrede,  Unterstichung  ziim  i  Clemensbricf,  p.  8i. 
88 


FROM    CLEMENT   TO   IREN^US  89 

telling  by  the  scarlet  thread  from  her  window  that  re- 
demption should  flow  through  the  blood  of  the  Lord  to 
all  who  believe  and  hope  in  God ;  ^  and  Isaac  in  yielding 
himself  as  a  sacrifice  knew  what  was  to  come.^ 

Again,  in  the  judgment  of  Clement,  the  offices  of  bishop 
and  deacon  were  no  new  thing;  for  even  Isaiah  (60: 17) 
had  written  concerning  them.^  It  is  plain  from  this 
passage,  as  from  many  others,  that  Clement  read  his 
Old  Testament  in  the  Greek  translation,  for  the  original 
does  not  refer  to  ecclesiastical  offices  in  particular,  and 
therefore  has,  of  course,  no  suggestion  of  bishops  and 
deacons. 

Moreover,  it  seems  probable  that  Clement  modified  his 
Greek  text  somewhat  to  suit  his  need,  for  even  this  has 
the  word  "rulers"  {apxovra<i)  instead  of  "deacons," 
that  is,  servants. 

But  the  Old  Testament  was  not  only  predictive  of  Christ 
and  the  Church ;  it  was  also,  in  the  thought  of  Clement, 
which  was  indorsed  by  the  Roman  congregation,  an 
utterance  of  Christ  himself,  at  least  in  part.  Thus  he 
ascribes  directly  to  Christ  the  words  of  the  Psalm  (22  :6), 
"I  am  a  worm  and  no  man,"  and  also  the  words,  "Come, 
ye  children,  hearken  unto  me"  (34:11).  It  was  quite 
natural,  therefore,  in  view  of  this  supposed  relation 
between  Christ  and  the  Old  Testament,  to  cite  Habakkuk 
in  proof  of  the  Lord's  speedy  coming  rather  than  to  cite 
words  of  Jesus  recorded  in  the  Gospels.* 

*  See  I  Clement,  chapter  12. 

^  See  chapter  31.  ^  See  chapter  42. 

*  Clement  cites  words  of  Jesus  only  twice  (chapters  13,  46),  while  he 


90  THE    INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  BIBLE 

In  further  illustration  of  the  interpretative  ability  of  the 
author  and  of  the  Roman  Church  of  his  day,  or,  we  may 
better  say,  their  abundant  lack  of  the  historical  sense,  it 
may  be  noticed  that  he  regarded  Ps.  3:5:  "I  laid  me 
down  and  slept;  I  awaked;  because  thou  art  with  me" 
(Septuagint  rendering),  as  a  proof  of  the  doctrine  of  a 
resurrection;  and  at  the  same  time  he  gave  in  full  the 
fable  of  the  phcenix  as  a  valid  support  of  the  same  belief.* 

But  though  Clement's  attitude  toward  the  Old  Testa- 
ment was  biassed  by  weighty  presuppositions  that  ren- 
dered anything  like  accurate  critical  interpretation  impos- 
sible, it  is  to  be  noticed  that  he  was  untouched  by  the 
mania  to  allegorize  ^  the  Scripture,  and  that  he  generally 
made  a  correct  use  of  historical  incidents.     His  defect 

cites  more  than  a  hundred  times  from  the  Old  Testament.  The  only 
New  Testament  book  that  he  seems  to  have  quoted  directly  is  Hebrews 
(chapter  36). 

'  "  Let  us  consider  that  wonderful  sign  which  takes  place  in  Eastern 
lands,  that  is,  in  Arabia  and  the  countries  round  about.  There  is  a 
certain  bird  which  is  called  a  phoenix.  This  is  the  only  one  of  its  kind, 
and  lives  five  hundred  years.  And  when  the  time  of  its  dissolution  draws 
near  that  it  must  die,  it  builds  itself  a  nest  of  frankincense  and  myrrh 
and  other  spices,  into  which,  when  the  time  is  fulfilled,  it  enters  and  dies. 
But  as  the  flesh  decays  a  certain  kind  of  worm  is  produced,  which,  being 
nourished  by  the  juices  of  the  dead  bird,  brings  forth  feathers.  Then, 
when  it  has  acquired  strength,  it  takes  up  that  nest  in  which  are  the  bones 
of  its  parent,  and  bearing  these  it  passes  from  the  land  of  Arabia  into 
Egypt,  to  the  city  called  Heliopolis.  And  in  open  day  flying  in  the  sight 
of  all  men,  it  places  them  on  the  altar  of  the  Sun,  and  having  done  this, 
hastens  back  to  its  former  abode.  The  priests  then  inspect  the  registers 
of  dates  and  find  that  it  has  returned  exactly  as  the  five  hundredth  year 
was  completed."     (i  Clement,  25.) 

^  Wrede,  op.  cit.,  p.  80,  with  a  somewhat  broad  definition  of  allegory, 
finds  illustrations  of  it  in  chapters  12  and  31. 


FROM   CLEMENT   TO    IREN^US  91 

was  not  that  he  emptied  Old  Testament  history  of  its 
meaning  by  allegorical  interpretations,  but  that  he  con- 
stantly read  into  it  the  ethical  and  religious  views  of  his 
own  time. 

In  the  Church  at  Rome  and  perhaps  contemporaneously 
with  Clement  lived  Hermas/  author  of  The  Shepherd,  a 
work  which  we  mention  here  in  passing  because  of  a  cer- 
tain negative  value  that  it  possesses.  It  has  no  formal 
quotations  from  the  Bible,  and  naturally  so,  inasmuch  as 
the  author  simply  narrates  what  he  saw  and  heard  in  his 
visions.  Its  value  for  our  present  purpose  consists  in 
the  fact  that,  although  it  is  full  of  dull  allegories  and 
prolix  moralizings,  it  was  exceedingly  popular  for  two 
centuries  and  longer,  was  read  in  meetings  for  worship 
by  the  side  of  the  Scriptures,  and  was  thought  to  be 
inspired  even  by  such  men  as  Clement  of  Alexandria  and 
Origen.  We  judge,  then,  that  the  standard  of  inspiration 
was  notably  different  in  those  times  from  the  standard 
at  present.^  What  Clement  of  Alexandria  and  Origen 
regarded  as  a  sacred  writing  would  now  be  thought  very 
commonplace,  and  to  claim  that  it  is  inspired  would  seem 
to  every  one  ridiculous. 

From  Rome  we  pass  now  to  Alexandria,  from  the 
romance  of  Hermas  to  the  general  Epis'th  of  Barnabas. 
This  also  may  date  from  the  closing  years  of  the  first 
century.^     It   is  found  with  the  New  Testament  in  the 

*  Kriiger,  History  of  Early  Christian  Literature,  gives  as  an  approximate 
date  for  Hermas  100  a.d. 

^  Comp.  Cruttwell,  Literary  History  of  Early  Christianity,  i.  121. 

^  Harnack,  AUchristliche  Literatur,  2.  i.  416,  assigns  it  to  the  period 
80-130,  more  specifically  to  the  close  of  this  period. 


92  THE    INTERPRETATION   OF   THE   BIBLE 

Codex  Sinailiais,  and  was  ranked  as  a  sacred  writing  by 
the  great  teachers  of  Alexandria.  Who  its  author  was 
is  unknown,  but  he  claimed  to  be  an  interpreter  of  Scrip- 
ture, and  as  such  he  had  an  influence  which  survived  for 
centuries.  Ability  to  interpret  was  regarded  by  him  as 
a  "gift,"  ^  a  faculty  of  reading  riddles.  The  Old  Testa- 
ment ^  was  looked  upon  as  a  book  of  parables.  Some  of 
these,  according  to  the  author  of  Barnabas,  it  was  impos- 
sible for  the  Jews,  in  Old  Testament  times,  to  understand, 
and  others,  he  declares,  would  be  unintelligible  even  to 
his  Christian  readers.^  Therefore  he  did  not  unfold 
these  passages  to  them. 

It  appears  that  the  author  of  Barnabas,  sometimes  at 
least,  quite  set  aside  the  meaning  of  the  Old  Testament 
text.  An  example  of  such  treatment  is  his  interpretation 
of  the  law  concerning  clean  and  unclean  animals.  He 
says  that  Moses  intended  to  teach  a  purely  spiritual  doc- 
trine, or  rather  three  doctrines,  but  the  people  did  not 
understand  him.  David,  however,  comprehended  his 
meaning,  as  we  see  from  the  first  Psalm,  for  the  "ungodly" 
of  whom  he  there  speaks  are  the  "fishes"  forbidden  to  the 
Israelites  in  the  law,  the  "sinners"  correspond  to  the 
"swine"  and  other  unclean  animals,  and  the  "scorners" 
q,re  the  "birds  of  prey."  The  author  thinks  that  Moses 
legislated  well,  though  he  admits  at  the  same  time  that 
/  it  was  not  possible  for  the  Jews  to  understand  what  his 
laws   meant.     Their  true   meaning,   he   held,   was  deep 

*  Barnabas,  i,  8. 

^  The  author  quotes  but  once  from  the  New  Testament,  viz.  in  chapter  4. 

'•'  Bar)iahas,  9,  17. 


FROM   CLEMENT   TO    IREN^US  93 

down  beneath  the  hteral  sense;  it  was  a  "mystery"  and 
designed  for  the  Christian  Church.  We  will  give  two 
illustrations  of  these  hidden  mysteries.  It  will  be  noticed 
that  in  both  cases  the  key  to  the  mystery  was  borrowed 
from  rabbinic  exegesis.  We  read  in  Genesis  that  God 
finished  his  work  in  six  days.  This  implies,  says  the 
author,  that  he  will  finish  all  things  in  six  thousand  years, 
for  a  day  is  with  him  a  thousand  years  (Ps.  90:4)-* 
But  the  author  seems  to  have  regarded  as  his  happiest 
piece  of  interpretation  the  solution  of  the  mystery  of  the 
three  letters;  that  is,  the  mystery  of  the  number  318 
which  is  found  in  the  story  of  Abraham  and  Lot  (Gen.  14 : 
14).  This  "mystery,"  which,  of  course,  has  no  existence 
whatever  except  in  the  imagination  of  the  interpreter,  is 
solved  as  follows:  Ten  is  the  numerical  value  of  the 
Greek  letter  iota,  and  eight  the  value  of  the  letter  eta. 
These  two  are  the  first  letters  of  the  name  "  Jesus  "  (It/o-ou?). 
Three  hundred  is  the  numerical  value  of  the  Greek  letter 
tau  (t),  which  is  the  sign  of  the  cross.  And  thus  the 
author  proved  that  Abraham,  when  he  circumcised  the 
318'  men  of  his  household,  did  it  with  a  thought  of  re- 
demption by  the  cross  of  Jesus  ! 

The  author  of  Barnabas  was  the  first  Christian  writer 
of  whom  we  know  who  found  in  the  Old  Testament  an 
elaborate  typological  element.  That  his  types  were  purely 
fanciful,  one  need  not  read  far  to  discover.     Take  one  or 


1  Ihid.,  I. 

2  It  is  not  said  in  Genesis  that  the  number  circumcised  was  318.  In- 
deed, it  seems  to  be  implied  that  there  were  more  than  318.  Comp.  Gen. 
14:14;    17:26-27. 


^ 


94  THE    INTERPRETATION    OF   THE    BIBLE 

two  illustrations.  The  goat  sent  into  the  wilderness 
(Lev.  i6:io)  was  a  type  of  Christ,  and  for  that  reason 
one  of  a  goodly  aspect  was  chosen.  The  scarlet  wool 
with  which  it  was  crowned  pointed  to  the  scarlet  robe 
which  was  put  on  Jesus  at  his  trial.  The  wool  taken 
from  the  goat  and  put  on  a  bush  in  the  wilderness  — 
this  supposed  to  be  a  prickly  bush  from  which  one  could 
not  take  the  wool  without  suffering  —  was  a  type  of  Jesus 
set  before  the  Church,  and  it  taught  that  one  who  would 
have  the  kingdom  of  Jesus  must  be  willing  to  suffer  for 
it.^  So  again  the  red  heifer  (Num.  19:  2)  and  the  brazen 
serpent  (Num.  21 : 8)  were  types  of  Jesus,'  and  the  death 
on  the  cross  was  figured  forth  by  ^Moses  when  his  arms 
were  stretched  out  during  the  battle  with  the  Amalekites 
(Ex.  17 :  12).^ 

It  need  scarcely  be  pointed  out  that  all  this  typological 
interpretation  is  quite  foreign  to  the  thought  which  Jesus 
had  of  the  Old  Testament ;  nevertheless  the  author  of 
Barnabas  was  only  the  first  of  a  large  and  distinguished 
company  of  Christian  students  who  have  found  comfort 
in  it. 

One  point  remains  to  be  considered.  We  occasionally 
find  the  author  of  Barnabas  applying  to  the  interpretation 
of  Scripture  a  method  which  may  be  called  the  logical. 
Thus  he  derives  from  Is.  i :  13  a  proof  for  the  duty 
of  observing  the  Christian  Sunday  instead  of  the  Jewish 
Sabbath.  When  God  said  to  Israel,  "Your  new  moons 
and  your  Sabbaths  I  cannot  endure,"  that  means,  your 
present  Sabbaths  are  not  acceptable  to  me,  and  this  lan- 

^  Barnabas,   7.  "^  Ibid.,  8,  12.  ^  Ibid.,  12. 


FROM    CLEMENT   TO   IREN^US  95 

guage  is  thought  to  imply  clearly  that  God  had  another 
Sabbath  in  mind,  even  "the  beginning  of  the  eighth  day," 
when  he  should  have  given  rest  to  all  things.  This 
acceptable  eighth  day,  the  author  holds,  is  obviously  the 
Christian  Sunday.  But  he  missed,  in  the  first  place,  the 
evident  meaning  of  the  prophet,  vi^ho  does  not  represent 
God  as  finding  fault  vi^ith  his  own  institution  of  the  day 
of  rest,  but  only  with  a  false  observance  of  that  day ;  and 
having  missed  this,  he  proceeded  to  draw  out  what  he 
thought  was  involved  in  the  criticism.  His  conclusion, 
however,  is  plainly  illogical.  For  even  if  God  had  found 
fault  with  the  Sabbath  itself,  the  seventh  day  of  the  week, 
it  would  not  follow  that  he  desired  the  observance  of  the 
next  day. 

It  may  be  remarked  in  conclusion  that  the  citation 
of  Scripture  in  Barnabas  is  very  loose  and  inaccurate,  a 
fact  quite  in  contrast  with  what  we  find  in  the  letter  of  the 
Roman  Clement. 

In  the  letter  of  Polycarp  ^  to  the  Philippians,  while  it 
furnishes  no  specific  material  for  the  history  of  interpre- 
tation in  the  early  part  of  the  second  century,  we  have  the 
first  Christian  document  which  quotes  almost  exclusively 
from  the  New  Testament,  and  that  quotes  at  the  same 
time  in  an  apt  and  simple  fashion.  So  to  quote  implies, 
indeed,  a  knowledge  of  the  general  purport  of  the  Scripture 
quoted,  and  with  reference  to  the  source  of  the  quotations 
it  indicates  that  the  author  put  the  New  Testament  above 
the  Old. 

It  is  at  just  this  point  that  the  letters  of  Ignatius,  who 

1  Polycarp  was  bishop  of  Smyrna,  and  died  a  martyr  in  155  a.d. 


96  THE   INTERPRETATION   OF   THE   BIBLE 

is  reputed  to  have  been  the  second  bishop  of  Antioch  and 
to  have  suffered  martyrdom  in  Rome  under  Trajan 
(98-117  A.D.),  are  of  most  interest  for  our  subject.  The 
author  makes  only  the  slightest  direct  use  of  Scripture, 
and  offers  perhaps  only  one  independent  interpretation, 
viz.  that  the  blood  of  Jesus  signifies  incorruptible  love 
and  eternal  life,*  but  he  shows  at  least  one  quality  of  an 
interpreter ;  that  is,  a  sense  of  historical  development,  for 
he  recognizes  the  superiority  of  the  Gospel  to  the  Old 
Testament.  "Jesus  Christ,"  he  says,^  "is  in  the  place  of 
all  that  is  ancient ;  his  cross,  and  death,  and  resurrection, 
and  the  faith  which  is  by  him,  are  undefiled  monuments 
of  antiquity";  and  again,  "The  Gospel  has  something 
transcendent,  to  wit,  the  appearance  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ."  ^  If  this  truth,  of  which  Ignatius  showed  at 
least  some  slight  appreciation,  had  been  clearly  grasped 
by  the  leaders  of  the  early  centuries,  the  literature  of 
interpretation  and  also  the  doctrines  of  the  Church  would 
have  been  very  materially  affected. 

The  second  century  apologists,  especially  Justin, 
Theophilus,  and  x^thenagoras,  are  important  in  the  history 
of  interpretation  because,  in  the  first  place,  they  brought 
into  the  Church  the  classical  conception  of  inspiration. 
Thus  Athenagoras  describes  the  prophets  as  men  who 
spoke  in  an  ecstasy,  being  raised  above  the  natural  opera- 
tion of  their  minds. ^    As  a  flutc-playcr  breathes  into  his 

'  Epistle  to  the  Romans,  7;  comp.  John  6:51. 

'  Epistle  to  the  Philippians,  9. 

3  Ibid.,  9. 

*  Plea  for  the  Christians,  9. 


FROM   CLEMENT   TO   IREN^US  97 

flute,  SO,  he  says,  the  Spirit  of  God  breathed  into  them. 
The  figure  is  different  in  Justin,  but  the  idea  is  the  same, 
for  he  likens  the  prophet  to  a  lyre  and  the  Spirit  to  a 
plectrum}  Theophilus  also  speaks  in  the  same  manner, 
thinking  of  the  inspiration  of  the  prophets  exactly  as  men 
thought  of  the  inspiration  of  the  Sibyl.^  According  to 
this  conception  of  inspiration,  the  prophets  themselves 
did  not  speak ;  it  was  the  divine  word,^  or  the  Holy  Spirit,* 
who  spoke.  The  miracle  is  heightened  by  affirming  that 
the  prophets  were  illiterate.^  If,  then,  they  were  the  pas- 
sive instruments  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  it  was  naturally  as 
easy  for  them  to  speak  of  the  creation  of  the  world  or  of 
the  consummation  of  all  things  as  to  speak  of  what  lay 
near  to  them,  of  that  which  their  eyes  had  seen  and  their 
hands  had  handled. 

Again,  the  second  century  apologists  affected  the  inter- 
pretation of  Scripture  in  a  vital  manner  by  the  introduc- 
tion into  the  Old  Testament  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Logos, 
which  had  already  been  applied  to  Jesus  in  the  Prologue 
of  the  Gospel  of  John.  Who  first  of  Christians  read  the 
Logos  into  the  Jewish  Scriptures  we  do  not  know.  Tatian, 
in  his  Address  to  the  Greeks,^  says :  "We  have  been  taught 
that  the  beginning  is  the  power  of  the  Logos,  and  that  the 
Logos  begat  the  world,"  and  his  language  suggests  that  he 
traced  the  teaching  farther  back  than  to  his  master  Justin. 
It  is  in  Justin,  however,  that  we  first  find  it  elaborated.'^ 

'  Address  to  the  Greeks,  8.  ^  Ad  Autol.,  2.  9. 

^  See  Justin,  First  Apology,  36;  Theophilus,  Ad  Autol.,  2.  10. 
*  Ad  AiUol.,  2.  9.  *  Ihid.,  2.  35.  ^  See  chapter  5. 

'  See,  e.g..  Dialogue  with  Trypho,  61. 
H 


98  THE   INTERPRETATION   OF  THE   BIBLE 

Identifying  "wisdom  "  with  the  Logos,  he  found  in  Proverbs 
(8:22-31)  a  clear  declaration  that  the  Logos  was  before 
all  things,  and  that  God  had  counselled  with  him  from 
the  beginning.  It  was  to  him  that  God  spoke  when  he 
said,  as  we  read  in  Genesis  (i :  26 ;  3  :  22),  "Let  us  make 
man  in  our  image,"  and  again,  "The  man  has  become  as 
one  of  us,  to  know  good  and  evil."  ^  When  this  identifi- 
cation was  once  made,  the  Logos  or  Christ  was  found 
throughout  the  entire  Old  Testament.  Thus  it  was  he 
to  whom  reference  is  made  when  the  Scriptures  speak  of 
the  "glory  of  God,"  the  "Son,"  "Wisdom,"  "Angel," 
and  not  infrecjuently  also  when  the  title  used  is  "God"  or 
"Lord."^  In  short,  when  the  Old  Testament  says  that 
God  manifested  himself,  this  took  place,  according  to 
Justin,  through  Christ  or  the  Logos.  Thus  the  Father 
recedes  into  the  background. 

This  significant  step  in  the  history  of  interpretation  was 
simply  the  application  of  Greek  philosophy  to  the  solution 
of  the  problem  of  the  sacred  writings  in  use  among  Chris- 
tians. What  Philo  did  from  his  Jewish  point  of  view 
was  done  from  the  Christian  point  of  view  by  Justin. 
It  was  a  step  to  which  a  long  development  of  thought 
among  the  Greeks  naturally  led  the  heirs  of  that  thought, 
especially  a  converted  philosopher  like  Justin.  It  was  a 
step  fraught  with  almost  unlimited  consequences  which 
were  to  show  themselves  in  the  Scripture  interpretation 
of  subsequent  centuries. 

The  second  century  apologists,  it  is  to  be  noticed  fur- 
ther, saw  the  heart  of  the  Old  Testament  in  its  supposed 

*  See  Dialogue  with  Trypho,  62.  ^  Dialogue,  62. 


FROM    CLEMENT  TO   IREN^US 


99 


predictive  element.  They  not  only  found  the  Logos  active 
in  the  Old  Testament,  but  they  also  made  the  Old  Testa- 
ment largely  a  book  whose  authors  had  the  historical 
Christ  in  view.  Thus  Justin  says  that  it  is  the  work  of 
God  to  tell  of  a  thing  before  it  happens/  and  he  frequently 
speaks  as  though,  in  his  judgment,  the  sole  business  of 
the  prophets  was  to  predict  future  events.^  From  the 
fulfilment  of  these  predictions  both  Justin  and  Theophilus 
argued  the  divine  character  of  the  new  religion.  This 
was  the  line  of  evidence  which  they  thought  would  be  of 
the  greatest  weight  with  their  readers.  In  this  point  they 
proceeded  in  harmony  with  the  authors  of  the  first  and 
fourth  Gospels,  though  they  pushed  the  argument  to 
greater  extremes.  The  length  to  which  Justin,  for  ex- 
ample, carried  the  predictive  element  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment may  be  seen  from  such  instances  as  the  following: 
Two  advents  of  Christ  are  predicted  by  Jacob  (Gen.  49) ;  -^  ^ 
this  patriarch,  no  less  than  the  prophet  Zechariah  (9 : 9), 
foretold  that  Christ  would  enter  Jerusalem  riding  on  an 
ass ;  ^  and  Ps.  24  predicts  the  ascension  of  Christ  into 
heaven.^ 

It  is  not  needful  to  dwell  on  the  facts  that  this  argument 
was  based  on  a  complete  misunderstanding  of  the  function 
of  the  Old  Testament  prophet,  that  it  failed  to  take  account 
of  the  multitude  of  points  in  the  supposed  predictions  re- 
garding Christ  for  which  no  fulfilment  in  his  history  was 
even  claimed,  and  that  it  missed  altogether  the  underlying 
spiritual  reality. 

'  First  Apology,  12.  ^  See,  e.g.,  Dialogue,  7. 

3  Ibid.,  52.  *  Ibid.,  14,  53.  ^  Ibid.,  36. 


1 


lOO  THE    INTERPRETATION    OF   THE    BIBLE 

The  writings  of  Justin,  which  exceed  those  of  all  other 
second  century  apologists  which  have  come  down  to  us, 
which  make  more  use  of  Scripture  than  the  others,  and 
which  had  a  paramount  influence  on  the  interpretation 
of  the  Bible  by  subsequent  generations,  furnish  material 
for  a  yet  further  illustration  of  his  exegesis.  And  first,  as 
to  its  scholarly  character.  Although  Justin  had  studied 
the  system  of  the  Stoics,  the  Pythagoreans,  and  the  Pla- 
tonists,^  this  study  had  not  made  him  accurate  as  an  in- 
terpreter, nor  had  it  developed  an  historical  sense  in  him. 
He  speaks  of  Christ  as  having  been  predicted  2000,  3000, 
and  even  5000  years  before  he  came.^  He  thinks  that  the 
Jews  had  a  lawgiver  and  king  of  their  own  up  to  the  time 
of  Christ,  and  that  the  Roman  rule  in  Palestine  began 
after  Christ  came.^  He  says  that  Moses  took  brass  and 
made  it  into  the  figure  of  a  serpent,  and  set  it  in  the  holy 
tabernacle.^ 

Again,  the  exegesis  of  Justin,  like  that  of  the  author  of 
Barnabas,  spiritualizes  the  Old  Testament.  No  Chris- 
tian writer  before  him,  whose  works  are  extant,  did  so 
much  in  this  direction.  He  did  not  set  aside  the  literal 
sense  of  the  text,  as  did  Philo,  but  he  often  found  in  it  a 
symbolical  or  allegorical  meaning.  If  he  did  not  descend 
to  such  trivial,  cabalistic  interpretations  as  some  which 
we  have  in  Barnabas,  he  yet  was  not  behind  the  author  of 
that  writing  in  the  arbitrariness  which  characterized  much 
of  his  exegesis.     Let  the  following  instances  be  justifica- 


'  See  Dialogue,  2.  '  Ibid.,  32;   Dialogue,  52. 

'  See  First  Apology,  31.  *  First  Apology,  60. 


FROM   CLEMENT  TO   IREN^US  loi 

tion  of  this  statement.  The  words  of  Jacob  concerning 
Judah  (Gen.  49 :  ii)  — 

"  Binding  his  foal  unto  the  vine, 
And  his  ass's  colt  unto  the  choice  vine, 
He  hath  vv^ashed  his  garment  in  wine, 
And  his  vesture  in  the  blood  of  grapes  "  — 

are  a  prophetic  allegory,  and  were  fulfilled  in  Christ's 
entry  into  Jerusalem  and  in  his  passion.^  The  foal  and 
colt  were  those  which  were  brought  to  Christ  as  he  was 
about  to  go  into  Jerusalem,  and  Justin  says  that  this 
foal  was  bound  to  a  vine  —  a  detail  not  found  in  the 
Gospel.  In  another  place,^  Justin  treats  the  foal  and  colt 
as  symbols  —  the  foal,  which  he  assumes  to  have  been 
harnessed,  as  a  symbol  of  the  Jews,  and  the  colt  as  a 
symbol  of  the  Gentiles.  "  Washing  his  garments  in  the 
blood  of  the  grape  "  was  predictive,  says  Justin,  of  the 
passion  of  Christ,  the  cleansing  by  his  blood  of  those 
who  believed  in  him.^  When  his  blood  is  called  "blood 
of  the  grape,"  that  signifies  that  it  was  to  be  "of  the  power 
of  God,"  for  it  is  God,  not  man,  who  makes  the  blood  of 
the  vine.  Thus  Justin  succeeded  in  reading  into  the  old 
song  of  Jacob  not  only  certain  historical  facts  in  the 
earthly  career  of  Jesus,  but  also  the  doctrine  of  his  in- 
carnation. 

Again,  the  roasting  of  the  paschal  lamb  (Ex.  12:8)  was, 
according  to  Justin,  a  symbol  of  Christ's  suffering  on  the 
cross,  for  when  a  lamb  was  prepared  for  roasting,  there  were 
in  it  two  spits  in  the  form  of  a  cross  !  ^    The  fine  fiour  which 

*  Ihid.,  32.  ^  First  Apology,  32. 

2  Dialogue,  53.  ■•  See  Dialogue,  40. 


I02  THE    INTERPRETATION    OF   THE    BIBLE 

was  used  in  purifying  from  leprosy  (Lev.  14:10)  was  a 
type  of  the  bread  of  the  Eucharist,  and  the  sacrifices  which 
the  prophet  Malachi  (i:ii)  declares  shall  be  offered  to 
Jehovah's  name  among  the  Gentiles,  are  nothing  else  than 
the  bread  and  wine  of  the  Supper.^ 

To  these  illustrations  of  an  utterly  fanciful  and 
worthless  exegesis  may  be  added  yet  one  more  which 
brings  out  another  aspect.  The  Septuagint  rendering 
of  Lam.  4:20  contains  the  unintelligible  statement,  "the 
breath  before  our  face  is  the  Lord  Christ."  Justin  took 
this  erroneous  and  obscure  translation  of  the  Hebrew  and 
deduced  from  it  a  meaning  quite  as  impossible  as  the 
translation  itself.  The  passage  alludes,  he  says,  to  the 
fact  that  there  is  a  cross  on  man's  face  made  by  the  nose.^ 
But  how  the  "breath"  can  be  identified  with  the  nose, 
and  the  nose  be  said  to  make  a  cross  on  the  face,  and  how  a 
possible  cross  in  the  structure  of  the  human  face  can  be 
identified  with  the  Lord  Christ  or  be  thought  to  refer  to 
him  —  these  all  are  points  which,  one  would  suppose, 
ought  to  have  seemed  questionable  even  to  an  interpreter 
of  the  second  century.  We  cannot  imagine  a  writer  of  the 
New  Testament,  not  excepting  the  author  of  Hebrews,  as 
indulging  in  such  fancies. 

Irenaeus,  the  Asiatic  bishop  of  southern  Gaul,  who 
survived  Justin  some  twenty-two  years,  marks  in  some 
respects  an  cxegetical  development  beyond  the  apologists. 
We  know  his  interpretation  of  Scripture  only  from  his 
famous  polemic  against  the  Gnostics.  It  was  doubtless 
determined  in  some  measure  by  their  views.     The  Gnostic 

^Dialogue,  41.  "^  First  Apology,  55. 


FROM    CLEMENT   TO    IREN^US  103 

teachings,  if  Irenaeus  correctly  represents  them,  were 
plainly  refuted  by  him,  but  this  was  accompHshed  in  the 
main  by  the  use  of  reason.  It  was  seldom  necessary  to 
go  into  their  interpretation  of  Scripture  in  detail  in  order 
to  show  the  absurdity  of  their  views.  Occasionally  the 
Gnostic  exegesis  which  Irenseus  cites  for  the  purpose  of 
refuting  it  was  right,  and  his  attempts  to  overthrow  it  were 
unavailing.  Thus  he  tried  in  vain  to  show  that  Paul  in 
2  Cor.  4 : 4  docs  not  speak  of  Satan  as  "  the  god  of  this 
world,"  ^  and  again  endeavors,  without  success,  to  prove 
that  the  "flesh  and  blood,"  which  Paul  says  cannot  inherit 
the  kingdom  of  God  (i  Cor.  15:50),  are  not  to  be  taken 
physically,  but  are  to  be  interpreted  as  meaning  men  who 
have  not  the  Spirit  of  God.^  But  apart  from  a  very  few 
exceptions  of  this  sort,  his  use  of  Scripture  appears  to  be 
overwhelmingly  more  forcible  than  theirs.  His  argument, 
for  example,  that  the  Old  Testament  and  the  New  do  not 
proclaim  two  different  Gods,  also  that  Jesus  and  Christ 
were  not  two  different  beings,  as  the  Gnostics  affirmed,  is,  in 
the  main,  valid.  His  general  Scripture  proof  is  sufficient. 
Thus,  with  reference  to  this  practical  end  —  the  refutation 
of  the  false  teaching  of  the  Gnostics  —  the  exegesis  of 
Irenseus  was  adequate. 

It  is  to  be  said,  further,  that  Irenaeus  gives  expression 
here  and  there  in  the  course  of  his  work  to  sound  principles 
of  interpretation.  Thus,  for  example,  he  wants  words 
taken  in  their  natural  sense  and  with  attention  to  their 
context.^    The  heretics,  he  says,  disregarded  the   order 

*  See  Against  Heresies,  3.  7.  ^  Ibid.,  5.  9.  i. 

3  Ibid.,  I.  9.  4. 


r04  THE   INTERPRETATION   OF  THE   BIBLE 

and  connection  of  Scripture,  and  carried  this  so  far  that 
the  result  was  as  though  one  should  take  a  beautiful  image 
of  a  king,  constructed  by  a  skilful  artist  out  of  precious 
jewels,  and  by  rearranging  the  jewels  should  make  the 
form  of  a  dog  or  of  a  fox,  and  should  declare  that  to  be 
the  king/ 

Again,  he  recognized  the  importance  of  steering  one's 
course  through  the  Bible  by  the  clear  and  unambiguous 
teachings  which  it  contains.  The  interpreter  is  not  to 
appeal  for  light  on  hard  questions  to  passages  which  may 
be  explained  in  a  different  way  by  every  one  who  ap- 
proaches them/  When  he  speaks  of  characteristic  teach- 
ings of  Scripture,  he  appears  to  have  in  mind  what  he 
calls  the  rule  of  truth, ^  or  the  tradition  received  from  the 
apostles/  Thus  we  understand  how  he  can  say  at  one 
time  that  the  entire  Scriptures  can  be  clearly,  unambigu- 
ously, and  harmoniously  understood  by  all,^  and  can  speak 
elsewhere  of  the  impossibility  of  explaining  all  that  is  in 
the  Scriptures/  What  all  can  understand  is,  in  his  thought, 
that  there  is  one  God,  the  Creator  of  all  things,  and  one 
Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the  Son  of  God,  born  of  a  virgin,  cruci- 
fied, and  risen  from  the  dead,  who  is  to  be  the  judge  of  men. 

But  though  Irenaeus  wanted  men  to  take  the  words  of 
Scripture  in  their  natural  sense,  it  will  be  shown  that  he 
was  far  from  doing  this  himself.  He  desired  to  have  the 
order  and  connection  of  Scripture  regarded,  but  often 
failed  to  regard  them  himself.     And  while  there  was  an 

'  Against  Heresies,  3.  12.  5.      *  Ibid.,  2.  9.  i ;   3.  2.  2;  3.  1-2;  4.  i. 
^  Ibid..,  2.  27.  I.  ^  Ibid.,  2.  27.  2. 

^  Ibid.,  I.  22.  I.  ^  Ibid.,  2.  28.  2-3. 


FROM    CLEMENT   TO    IREN^US  105 

element  of  truth  in  his  claim  for  tradition,  there  was  also  a 
subtle  error  in  it.  To  accept  this  tradition  as  a  correct 
summary  of  Scripture  teaching  and  vow  loyalty  to  it  was 
obviously  to  surrender  in  so  far  one's  own  right  to  search 
the  Scriptures  for  one's  self.  It  is  probable  that  Irenasus 
did  as  much  to  hamper  exegesis  in  subsequent  centuries 
as  the  apologists  had  done  by  their  theory  of  inspiration. 

When  we  come  to  details  of  the  exegesis  of  Irenaeus,  we 
find  that  he  was  virtually  in  line  with  Justin.  Like  him 
he  found  the  Son  implanted  everywhere  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment.^ Like  him  he  regarded  the  Old  Testament  as  full 
of  minute  predictions  regarding  Christ.^  His  freedom  in 
ascribing  a  mystical  and  symbolical  meaning  to  the  text 
was  not  less  than  Justin's,  as  the  following  illustrations 
show.  Thus  the  three  spies  whom  Rahab  hid  with  the 
stalks  of  flax  upon  her  roof  (Josh.  2  : 4)  were  types  of  the 
Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Spirit.^  The  fact  that  the 
stone  which  Daniel  saw  in  his  vision  (2 :  34)  was  cut  out 
of  the  mountain  without  hands  indicated  that  Joseph  was 
not  the  father  of  Jesus.^  Balaam's  ass  was  a  type  of  the 
body  of  Jesus,  upon  whom  all  men,  resting  from  their 
labors,  are  borne  as  in  a  chariot.^ 

Irenaeus  apphed  to  the  New  Testament  also  this  typo- 
logical method  of  exegesis.  Thus  the  magi  offered  Jesus 
gold  because  he  was  a  king,  myrrh  because  he  was  to  die 
and  be  buried,  and  frankincense  because  he  was  God.* 

•  Against  Heresies,  4.  26.  i. 

^  See,  e.g.,  Against  Heresies,  4.  6;   3.  20.  4. 

^  Ibid.,  4.  20.  12.  "  See  Fragment,  23. 

*  Ibid.,  3.  21.  7.  ^  Against  Heresies,  3.  9.  2. 


Io6  THE   INTERPRETATION    OF   THE   BIBLE 

The  act  of  washing  the  disciples'  feet  meant  that  Jesus 
cleansed  the  disciples  themselves  from  sin,  and  giving  the 
disciples  food  v^hen  they  were  in  a  recumbent  posture 
^  indicated  that  his  mission  on  earth  was  to  those  who  were 
spiritually  dead.^  In  thus  allegorizing  New  Testament 
history,  Irenaeus  took  a  step  which  no  one  before  him,  ex- 
cept the  Gnostics,  had  taken. 

In  conclusion,  as  illustrating  Irenaeus'  style  of  reasoning 
as  an  interpreter,  we  advert  to  the  fact  that  he  argued  from 
the  four  winds  and  the  four  faces  of  the  cherubim  that 
there  must  needs  have  been  just  four  Gospels ;  ^  that  Jesus 
could  not  have  been  the  son  of  Joseph,  for  then  he  would 
not  have  been  greater  than  Solomon,  Jonah,  and  David ;  ^ 
and  that  when  Jesus  said  that  Moses  wrote  of  him  (John 
5:46),  this  is  the  clearest  indication  that  the  writings  of 
Moses  are  Christ's  own  words  !^ 

The  course  of  interpretation  from  Clement  of  Rome  to 
Irenaeus,  which  we  have  now  followed  in  some  detail, 
may  be  briefly  summarized.  It  reveals  no  tendencies 
which  are  not  to  be  seen  in  New  Testament  writers,  at 
least  in  germ.  Its  relationship  to  the  Epistle  to  the  He- 
brews is  closer  than  to  any  other  canonical  writing.  The 
four  great  features  which,  though  adumbrated  in  the  New 
Testament,  go  far  beyond  it,  are  the  doctrine  of  inspiration, 
the  finding  of  the  Logos  throughout  tlie  Old  Testament,  the 
identification  of  the  heart  of  the  Old  Testament  with  its 
supposed  predictive  element,  and  the  spiritualization  of  the 
Scripture  text.     The  most  apt  use  of  Scripture  is  found  in 

*  Against  Heresies,  4.  22.  i.  '  Jhid.,  3.  21.  8. 

^Ibid.,  3.  II.  8.  Ubid.,  4.  2.  3. 


FROM   CLEMENT  TO    IREN^US  107 

Polycarp  and  Ignatius,  and  in  these  writers  alone  do  we 
see  the  New  Testament  put  above  the  Old.  The  feature  of 
second  century  interpretation  which  departs  farthest  from 
the  New  Testament  type  is  its  arbitrary  spirituaHzing  of 
the  Old  Testament,  whether  by  finding  in  it  types  of  Christ 
or  by  regarding  it  as  mystical  and  allegorical  in  its  nature. 


CHAPTER  V 

THE    ALEXANDRIAN  TYPE   OF  EXEGESIS 

The  "school  of  the  faithful"  in  Alexandria,  over  which 
Clement  and  Origen  presided  at  the  close  of  the  second 
century  and  in  the  earlier  part  of  the  third,  may  have  been 
established  some  years  before  the  death  of  Irenaeus,^  whose 
work  as  an  interpreter  was  considered  at  the  close  of  the 
last  chapter.  At  this  ancient  seat  of  science  and  philoso- 
phy, we  see  the  first  systematic  attempt  to  train  men  to  be 
teachers  and  preachers  of  the  new  rehgion.  The  origin  of 
the  institution  that  undertook  this  work  is  lost  among  the 
shadows  of  the  second  century,  but  the  school  was  flourish- 
ing when  Eusebius  wrote  his  history,  that  is,  in  the  first 
quarter  of  the  fourth  century.  The  men  who  made  this 
school  famous  had  a  greater  influence  in  the  Christian 
Church  as  philosophers  than  as  interpreters  of  Scripture, 
and  yet  their  influence  in  this  latter  department  far  ex- 
ceeded that  of  any  earUer  interpreters.  It  is  our  purpose 
in  this  chapter  to  speak  of  the  biblical  work  of  Clement  and 
Origen,  and  to  follow  the  influence  of  their  type  of  exegesis 

*  See  Eusebius,  Church  History,  5.  10.  1-4.  Kriiger,  History  of  Early 
Christian  Literature,  p.  160,  speaks  of  this  school  as  having  existed  long 
prior  to  180,  but  that  cannot  be  inferred  from  the  indefinite  language  of 
Eusebius.  Kihn,  Die  Bedeutung  der  antiochenischen  Schule,  p.  9,  re- 
gards it  as  dating  from  the  middle  of  the  second  century. 

108 


THE  ALEXANDRIAN  TYPE   OF  EXEGESIS 


109 


through  the  century  and  a  half  immediately  subsequent  to 
Origen's  death. 

Clement  of  Alexandria,  like  his  favorite  teacher  Pan- 
taenus,  whom  he  succeeded  as  head  of  the  catechetical 
school,  was  a  pagan  philosopher  before  he  became  a  Chris- 
tian, and  was  probably  a  native  of  Athens.^  Of  his  life 
before  he  came  to  Alexandria,  and  of  the  last  ten  years  ^ 
subsequent  to  his  departure  from  that  city  on  the  outbreak 
of  persecution,  we  know  almost  nothing.  Clement  was  a 
philosopher  by  training  and  choice.  In  him,  says  Harnack,^ 
ecclesiastical  Christianity  reached  the  stage  that  Judaism 
had  attained  in  Philo.  It  was  as  a  philosopher,  whose  ideal 
of  the  Christian  was  that  he  should  become  "a  perfect 
Gnostic,"  *  that  he  read  and  interpreted  the  Scriptures. 
His  general  conception  of  Christianity  is  given  in  these 
sentences  from  the  Stromata.  Philosophy,  he  says,  was  a 
schoolmaster  to  bring  the  Hellenic  mind,  as  the  Law  the 
Hebrews,  to  Christ.^  Philosophy,  therefore,  was  a  prepara- 
tion for  the  Gospel ;  it  paved  the  way  that  men  might  be 
perfected  in  Christ.  "The  way  of  truth  is  one,"  says 
Clement,  "but  into  it,  as  into  a  perennial  river,  flow  streams 
from  all  sides." 

As  an  interpreter  of  Scripture,  Clement  stood  on  essen- 
tially the  same  ground  as  Philo ;  but  in  the  application  of  a 
common  method  he  showed  better  judgment  than  his  great 
Jewish  predecessor,  and  did  not  often  go  to  such  excesses  in 

'  See  Bigg,  The  Christian  Platonists  of  Alexandria,  pp.  44-45. 
^  Clement  died  about  213  a.d.  (Bigg),  or  before  216  (Zahn). 
^  History  of  Dogma,  2.  325. 
*  See  Stromata,  6.  9-12.  *  Ibid.,  1.  5. 


no  THE   INTERPRETATION   OF   THE   BIBLE 

his  interpretation.  He  looked  upon  the  Scriptures,  even 
the  New  Testament,  as  a  book  of  enigmas,  and  he  held  that 
allegory  is  the  one  key  to  this  book/  It  is  said  that  Clem- 
ent accepted  allcgorism  as  a  part  of  ecclesiastical  tradition, 
and  it  is  plain  that  he  gave  it  no  such  philosophical  basis 
as  did  his  pupil  Origen  ;^  and  yet  Clement's  use  of  allegory 
differed  not  a  little  from  any  tradition  with  which  we  are 
acquainted.  It  is  no  longer  incidental,  as  in  Justin  and 
Irenaeus,  but  fundamental.  Clement,  in  holding  that 
Scripture  has  three  ^  senses, — Hteral  or  historical,  moral, 
and  spiritual, — obviously  held  that,  in  order  to  be  fully 
understood,  it  7nust  be  allegorized.  Now  this  was  a  radical 
step  in  advance  of  the  ecclesiastical  tradition,  and  it  gives 
to  Clement's  exegesis  its  one  conspicuous  feature. 

It  will  be  easy  to  show  that  the  allegorizing  of  Clement 
was  more  recondite  and  elaborate  than  that  of  Justin. 
Take,  e.g.,  his  treatment  of  the  tabernacle  and  its  furniture.'* 
The  four  colors  of  the  covering  —  blue,  purple,  scarlet,  and 
white  (Ex.  26:1) — suggest,  he  says,  that  the  nature  of 
the  elements  which  these  colors  symbolize,  contains  the 
revelation  of  God.  Again,  the  position  of  the  various 
articles  has  great  significance.  The  altar  of  incense 
placed  in  the  Holy  Place  before  the  veil  (Ex.  30:6)  is  a 
symbol  of  the  earth  in  the  middle  of  the  universe.     The 

'  Stromata,  5.  6.  ^  See  Bigg,  op.  cit.,  p.  134. 

'  For  the  view  that  Clement  found  a  fourfold  sense  in  Scripture,  and 
wrote  in  Stromata,  i.  28,  Terpaxws  instead  of  rpixC)^,  see  Davidson, 
Sacred  Hermencutics,  p.  79,  and  Bigg,  op.  cit.,  p.  57,  note.  But  the  con- 
text is  against  this  reading,  as  is  also  the  fact  that  Clement's  pupil,  Origen, 
held  a  threefold  sense. 

*  Stromata,  5.  6. 


THE   ALEXANDRIAN   TYPE   OF   EXEGESIS  III 

lamp  is  an  enigma  of  Christ,  and  its  position  on  the  south 
of  the  altar  shows  the  motions  of  the  seven  planets,  which 
perform  their  revolutions  toward  the  south.  The  ark 
signifies  the  properties  of  the  world  of  thought,  and  the 
twelve  stones  in  four  rows  are  the  signs  of  the  zodiac  in  the 
four  seasons.  Another  typical  instance  is  this  from  the 
Pcedagogus}  The  prophet  speaks  of  the  coming  deliverer 
as  riding  into  Jerusalem  upon  an  ass  and  a  young  colt 
(Zech.  9:9).  It  was  not  enough,  says  Clement,  to  have 
said  "colt"  alone,  but  he  added  to  it  also  "young,"  to 
show  the  youth  of  humanity  in  Christ,  and  the  eternity  of 
simplicity  which  shall  know  no  old  age.  Then  with  a 
personal  application  to  his  readers,  he  continues,  "We  who 
are  little  ones,  being  such  colts,  are  reared  up  by  our  divine 
colt-tamer." 

The  allegorizing  of  Clement  is  not  only  more  recondite 
and  elaborate  than  that  of  any  of  his  Christian  predecessors ; 
it  also  extends  to  the  New  Testament.  Now  while  it  may 
be  said  that  the  Platonic  maxim,  "Nothing  is  to  be 
believed  which  is  unworthy  of  God,"  lay  at  the  root  of 
allegorism  as  applied  to  the  Old  Testament,^  the  allego- 
rizing of  the  New  Testament  cannot  appeal  to  this  maxim. 
Yet  Clement  allegorizes  even  here.  In  the  fragment  of  a 
sermon  on  the  Lost  Son,^  he  speaks  of  the  robe  which  was 
put  on  the  returning  prodigal  as  the  robe  of  immortality* 
and  says  that  it  was  given  to  him  the  moment  he  obtained 
baptism.  Of  the  "shoes"  he  says  that  they  are  "buoyant, 
and  ascending,  and  waft  to  heaven,  and  serve  as  such  a 

'  Padagogus,  I.  5.  ^  See  Bigg,  op.  cit.,  p.  51. 

^  See  Ante-Nicene  Fathers,  Coxe's  edition,  2.  581-582. 


112  THE   INTERPRETATION   OF   THE   BIBLE 

ladder  and  chariot  as  he  requires  who  has  turned  his  mind 
toward  the  Father."  The  "calf"  of  the  parable  is  Christ, 
well  grown  and  to  such  size  that  he  fills  those  who  eat  him. 

Even  the  two  fishes  and  five  barley  loaves  with  which 
Jesus  once  fed  a  multitude  are  allegorically  explained  by 
Clement.  Taken  together,  they  indicate  the  preparatory 
training  of  the  Greeks  and  Jews,  for  barley  is  sooner  ripe 
than  wheat.  The  "fish"  signify  the  philosophy  that  is 
produced  in  the  midst  of  the  Gentile  billows.^  It  would  be 
far  easier  to  multiply  illustrations  of  this  sort  than  to  find 
an  instance  of  sober  interpretation.  But  it  is  not  necessary 
to  dwell  longer  on  Clement's  method.  The  best  that  can 
be  said  of  its  application  is  that  it  was  measurably  controlled 
by  the  author's  fidelity  to  certain  fundamental  Christian 
truths. 

When  Clement  fled  from  Alexandria,  his  mantle  as 
head  of  the  catechetical  school  fell  upon  Origen,  a  native 
Alexandrian  of  Christian  parentage,  but  of  Coptic  blood, 
who  was  then  about  eighteen  years  old.  This  position 
he  held  for  twenty-eight  years  with  only  one  brief  intemip- 
tion  during  the  persecution  under  Caracalla.  He  spent 
this  interval  in  Jerusalem  and  Cccsarea.  When  finally 
deposed  from  his  office  in  Alexandria  in  231  or  232  a.d.,^ 
he  continued  his  labors  in  Caesarea,  where  he  founded  a 
biblical  school.  He  died  in  Tyre  in  254  a.d.  as  a  result  of 
tortures  to  which  he  had  been  subjected  during  the  Decian 
persecution. 

Origen  achieved  greatness  not  simply  in  the  specific 

*  Stromata,  6.  1 1 . 

'See  Kriiger,  History  of  Early  Christian  Literature,  p.  176. 


THE   ALEXANDRIAN  TYPE   OF   EXEGESIS         113 

work  of  interpretation,  but  also  as  a  text  critic,  and  it  is 
necessary  to  bear  this  fact  in  mind  in  order  to  explain  such 
apparently  conflicting  statements  regarding  him  as,  e.g., 
that  he  laid  the  foundations  of  scientific  criticism  of  the 
Old  and  the  New  Testament,  and  also  that  he  read  his 
own  ideas  into  whatever  passage  of  Scripture  he  chose  for 
interpretation ;  *  or,  that  mediaeval  interpretation  of  Scrip- 
ture was  inspired  by  him,^  and  yet  that  he  was  the  greatest 
teacher  of  the  Church  after  the  apostles  (Jerome). 

As  an  interpreter,  Origen  was  a  greater  Clement ;  as  a 
text  critic,  he  was  a  pioneer.  As  an  interpreter,  he  illus- 
trated the  Alexandrian  type  of  exegesis  most  systematically 
and  extensively;  as  a  critic  of  the  text,  it  is  true  of  him 
that  he  introduced  a  new  epoch.  As  an  interpreter,  he 
represents  the  culmination  of  a  fatal  method ;  as  a  critic 
of  the  text,  he  was  qualified  to  be  a  valuable  witness 
rather  than  a  judge ;  ^  he  called  attention  to  new  lines  of 
investigation  rather  than  laid  sure  foundations  on  which 
later  workers  might  build.  He  produced  a  New  Testa- 
ment text  which  attained  currency  in  his  own  time,*  and 
in  the  Hexapla  ^  he  presented  the  materials  for  a  compari- 
son of  the  Hebrew  text  and  the  various  Greek  versions. 
This  first  attempt  to  establish  the  true  text  of  Scripture  in 
a  documentary  manner  has  long  since  perished. 

While  the  qualifications  of  Origen  for  critical  work 
doubtless   surpassed,  on   the  whole,  those  of  any  other 

*  See  Ilarnack,  Ency.  Brit.,  article  "Origen." 

2  See  Westcott,  Did.  of  Christ.  Biog.,  article  "Origenes." 
'  See  Westcott,  op.  cit. 

*  See  Bigg,  op.  cit.,  pp.  123-124;   Kriiger,  op.  cit.,  p.  179. 
^  See  Eusebius,  Church  History,  6.  16. 

I 


114  THE   INTERPRETATION   OF  THE   BIBLE 

scholar  of  his  century,  it  is  plain  that  he  was  hampered 
by  some  serious  deficiencies.  Thus  his  knowledge  of 
Hebrew  was  not  thorough  and  independent/  his  historical 
sense  was  little  developed,  and  in  critical  power  he  was  not 
the  equal  of  his  contemporary  Africanus.^ 

As  an  interpreter,  Origen  was  regarded  by  his  pupils 
as  inspired,^  and  subsequent  generations  have  drawn 
largely  from  his  writings.  Yet  it  seems  obvious  that  the 
salient  features  of  this  interpretation  were  dogmatic  pre- 
possession and  allegory.  The  former  is  well  seen  in  a 
statement  from  the  Commentary  on  John  ^  where  it  is  said 
that  the  Gospels  are  the  first-fruit  of  Scripture  and  John  the 
first-fruit  of  the  Gospel,  because  no  other  "plainly  de- 
clared" the  Godhead  of  Christ,  "as  John  does." 

Now,  that  the  Gospels  are  the  first-fruits  of  Scripture 
was  a  true  Christian  conclusion,  for  which  he  might  have 
adduced  ample  grounds;  but  that  John  is  the  first-fruit 
of  the  Gospels  on  account  of  its  plain  declaration  of  the 
Godhead  of  Christ  is  a  statement  which  savors  not  of  the 
student  of  Scripture,  but  only  of  the  theologian.  When 
such  a  statement  is  made  at  the  outset  of  a  commentary, 
we  know  how  the  interpretation  will  fall  out.  Again,  we 
have  the  same  principle  laid  down  in  the  Preface  of  the 
De  Principiis,  for  Origen  here  declares  that  nothing  is 
to  be  accepted  as  truth  which  differs  in  any  respect  from 
ecclesiastical  and  apostolic  tradition.     Since  then  tradition 

*  See  Elliott,  Did.  of  Christ.  Biog.,  article  "Hebrew  Learning  among 
the  Fathers";   Bigg,  op.  cit.,  pp.  125-126;  Westcott,  op.  cit. 

^  See  his  Letter  to  Origen  regarding  the  History  of  Susanna. 
'  See  the  Panegyric  of  Gregory  Thaumaturgus. 

*  Commentary  on  John,  i.  6. 


THE   ALEXANDRIAN   TYPE   OF   EXEGESIS         115 

found  Christ  throughout  the  Old  Testament,  Origen  did 
the  same.  His  view  of  inspiration  was  also  in  essential 
harmony  with  that  of  tradition,  as  it  appears  in  men  like 
Justin.  Inspiration,  he  held,  extended  to  the  whole  of 
Scripture,^  and  was  of  such  sort  that  the  admission  of  a 
discrepancy  in  the  Gospels  ^  would  require  us  to  give  up 
our  trust  in  them. 

A  statement  like  that  quoted  above  in  reference  to  the 
preeminence  of  the  Gospels  seems  to  imply  that  Origen, 
in  common  with  some  of  the  rabbis,  saw  differing  degrees 
of  inspiration  in  different  parts  of  Scripture,^  but  on  this 
point  one  can  speak  only  in  a  general  way.  He  does  not 
seem  to  have  associated  inspiration  in  an  essential  manner 
with  the  content  of  the  sacred  writings. 

But  the  dogmatic  bias  in  Origen  as  an  interpreter  was 
not  by  any  means  peculiar  to  him,  nor  more  prominent 
than,  for  example,  in  Irengeus.  Not  so  the  completeness 
with  which  he  set  forth  the  method  of  allegory.  In  this 
particular,  his  work  marked  a  distinct  development.  Like 
Clement  he  accepted  the  doctrine  of  a  threefold  sense  in 
Scripture,  but  he  established  this  doctrine  out  of  Scripture 
itself,*  viz.,  out  of  the  Septuagint  rendering  of  an  uncertain 
Hebrew  word  in  Prov.  8 :  20.  In  following  the  Septuagint 
without  warrant  from  the  Hebrew,  in  building  a  great 
superstructure  on  a  text  which  even  in  Scripture  is  obscure, 
and  in  extending  to  all  Scripture  a  word  which  obviously 
applied  only  to  a  part  of  the  single  book  of  Proverbs, 

'  De  Principiis,  4.  i.  7.  ^  Commentary  on  John,  10.  2. 

2  See  Harnack,  History  of  Dogma,  2.  348;   Bigg,  op.  cit.,  p.  147. 
*  De  Principiis,  4.  i.  11. 


H6  THE   INTERPRETATION   OF  THE   BIBLE 

Origen  afforded  in  his  proof  of  the  threefold  sense  of  Scrip- 
ture an  admirable  illustration  of  the  utter  inconclusiveness 
of  his  reasoning. 

Of  the  three  meanings  of  "the  divine  letters,"  the  his- 
torical sense,  which  is  primarily  for  the  edification  of  the 
simple,  may  be  called  the  "body"  of  Scripture.  Not  all 
texts  have  this  bodily  sense,  according  to  Origen,  but  the 
majority  have.^  Those  who  can  see  deeper  than  the 
historical  sense  are  edified  by  the  "soul"  of  Scripture; 
and  those  who  are  perfect  perceive  the  spiritual  law  itself. 
They  attain  to  the  pneumatic  sense.  All  Scripture  has 
this  spiritual  meaning.^ 

Origen  found  confirmation  of  the  doctrine  of  a  threefold 
,  sense  in  the  supposed  constitution  of  man  as  a  being  con- 
sisting of  body,  soul,  and  spirit  —  a  confirmation  worth 
about  as  much  as  the  verse  in  Proverbs.  For  even  if  it 
were  established  that  man  consists  of  body,  soul,  and  spirit, 
one  sees  no  reason  for  assuming  that  the  historical  sense  of 
Scripture  is  designed  for  the  redemption  of  man's  body,  its 
psychic  sense  for  his  soul,  and  its  mystic  meaning  for  his 
spirit.  The  supposed  analogy  is  without  force.  It  has 
no  more  connection  with  the  thought  of  Scripture  than  has 
Origen's  explanation  of  the  water-jars  which  are  mentioned 
in  the  story  of  the  marriage  at  Cana.  The  expression 
"two  or  three  firkins"  is  a  dark  intimation,  says  Origen, 
that  the  Jews  were  purified  by  the  psychical  and  spiritual 
sense,  sometimes  also  by  the  addition  of  the  corporeal. 
/  Since,  moreover,  the  world  was  made  in  six  days,  it  was 

'  De  Principiis,  4.  i.  19-20.  ^  Ibid.,  4.  i.  20. 


THE  ALEXANDRIAN   TYPE   OF   EXEGESIS         117 

appropriate  that  there  should  be  six  jars  for  the  water  of 
purification.^ 

Origen  appeals,  in  support  of  his  doctrine,  to  the  obvious 
irrationality  of  taking  some  statements  of  Scripture  in  a 
literal  sense,^  and  notes  that  certain  passages  are  treated 
allegorically  or  figuratively  even  by  the  sacred  writers;^ 
but  the  first  of  these  facts  is  not  an  argument  that  Scripture 
has  more  than  one  sense,  and  as  for  the  second,  it  of  course 
does  not  suggest  that  any  passage  has  more  than  two 
senses,  and  it  would  be  quite  unsafe  to  argue  from  it  that 
every  passage  of  Scripture  has  even  two  meanings,  a  his- 
torical and  an  allegorical. 

It  is  plain  that  Origen  as  an  interpreter  found  his  chief 
satisfaction  in  drawing  out  the  pneumatic  sense  of  Scrip- 
ture, and  that  his  method  of  accomplishing  this  end  was 
as  arbitrary  and  worthless  as  was  his  doctrine  that  every 
Scripture  has  a  pneumatic  sense  as  distinguished  from  an 
historical  and  a  moral  sense.  As  an  illustration  of  this 
statement,  take  the  words  of  the  Baptist  in  John  1:26:^ 
"There  standeth  one  among  you  whom  ye  know  not." 
This  statement  scarcely  seems  to  call  for  any  comment, 
but  as  in  many  other  cases  the  very  simplicity  of  the  text 
appears  to  have  been  to  Origen  evidence  of  an  unusually 
deep  meaning.  These  words,  he  says,  indicate  that  Christ 
has  "such  virtue  as  to  be  invisible  in  his  Deity,  though 
present  to  every  man  and  extending  over  the  whole  uni- 
verse." The  historical  impossibility  of  attributing  such  a 
thought  to  the  Baptist  did  not  occur  to  Origen. 

*  De  Principiis,  4.  i.  12.  ^  Ihid.,  4.  i.  12. 

^  Ibid.,  4.  I.  16-18.  *  Commentary  on  John,  6.  15. 


Il8  THE   INTERPRETATION    OF  THE   BIBLE 

In  the  next  verse  of  the  same  chapter  of  John  we  have 
another  very  simple  statement,  "The  latchet  of  whose  shoe 
I  am  not  worthy  to  unloose."  Origen  sees  strange  mys- 
teries in  the  "shoe."  The  author,  he  says,  conveys,  as  in  a 
riddle,  that  he  is  not  fit  to  solve  and  to  explain  the  argu- 
ment about  Christ's  assuming  a  human  body,  an  argu- 
ment "tied  up"  and  hidden  from  those  who  do  not  under- 
stand it.  Then  he  dilates  on  the  fact  that  only  one  shoe 
is  mentioned  in  John,  while  in  the  other  Gospel  the  plural 
is  used.  One  shoe  signifies  Christ's  taking  human  flesh,  the 
other  his  descent  into  Hades.^  The  Baptist  mentioned 
only  one,  because  at  the  time  he  was  in  doubt  whether  Jesus 
was  to  enter  Hades."  All  this  is  as  utterly  fanciful  as  the 
exegesis  of  Philo.  The  difference  between  them  as  alle- 
gorists  is  that  Philo  was  not  bound  as  closely  by  a  living 
tradition  as  was  Origen.  We  know  at  the  outset  that  while 
Origen 's  method  of  exegesis  alloivs  him  to  deduce  from  a 
text  of  Scripture  some  heretical  doctrine  of  Valentinus  or 
Basilides,  the  doctrine  which  he  will  actually  bring  forth 
will  be  consistent  with  the  Catholic  faith.  But  this  is 
absolutely  the  only  certainty  that  one  can  feel  in  regard  to 
the  result  of  Origen's  study  of  a  given  Scripture  text. 

The  Alexandrian  type  of  exegesis  which  we  have  seen 
in  Clement  and  Origen  dominated  the  Western  Church 
through  the  period  of  the  great  Theologians.  It  was  thus 
vitally  related  to  the  doctrinal  statements  which  have 
continued  in  force  to  the  present  day.  It  will  be  sufficient 
for  our  purpose  to  trace  the  Alexandrian  influence  on  the 
great  men  who  moulded  ecclesiastical  doctrine;   but  first 

'  Commentary  on  John,  6.  i8.  ^  Ibid.,  6.  21. 


THE   ALEXANDRIAN   TYPE   OF   EXEGESIS 


119 


we  may  notice  briefly  the  relation  between  Origen's  work 
and  some  less  distinguished  Church  leaders. 

Of  the  immediate  pupils  of  Origen,  no  one  registered  an 
advance  on  the  exegetical  method  of  their  master.  Dio- 
nysius,  the  greatest  of  them,  allegorized  even  the  vinegar,  the 
sponge,  and  the  hyssop  which  are  mentioned  in  the  account 
of  the  crucifixion.^  The  school  which  Origen  founded  at 
Caesarea  may  have  continued  the  better  tendency  in  his 
biblical  method,  that  is,  the  critical,  and  may  have  rejected 
allegorism,^  or  at  least  may  have  refused  to  give  it  promi- 
nence. And  yet  the  great  bishop  of  Csesarea,  Eusebius, 
who  succeeded  to  this  office  between  fifty  and  sixty  years 
after  the  death  of  Origen,  stands,  as  an  interpreter,  in 
general  agreement  with  the  Alexandrians,  though  the 
historical  sense  sometim.es  assumes  greater  practical  im- 
portance in  his  sight  than  in  that  of  Origen. 

In  Jerome  ^  the  critical  element  assumes  as  large  propor- 
tions as  in  the  work  of  Origen,  and  in  this  department  his 
achievement  was  of  the  greatest  influence,  far  surpassing 
that  of  the  Alexandrian  pioneer.  He  was  the  first  to  reject 
the  tradition  regarding  the  Septuagint  translation,  the  first 
to  go  with  adec|uate  or  at  least  respectable  knowledge  to 
the  Hebrew  original,  the  first  to  make  a  critical  translation 
of  the  Bible,  and  the  first  to  acquire  a  considerable  archaeo- 
logical knowledge  of  the  Scriptures.  All  these  distinguished 
achievements  suggest  that  Jerome  is  to  be  classed  with  the 
school  of  Antioch  rather  than  with  that  of  Alexandria,  but 

*  See  Ante-Nicene  Fathers,  Coxa's  edition,  6.  114  f. 

^  See  Chase,  Chrysostom,  p.  4. 

^  Born  340-342  A.D.  (Zockler) ;   died  about  420  A.D. 


I20  THE   INTERPRETATION   OF  THE   BIBLE 

these  achievements  do  not  show  us  the  exegete.  In  this 
department  he  belongs,  in  the  main,  with  Origen  and  the 
Alexandrians.  Thus,  for  example,  he  declares  that  every 
sacrifice  in  Leviticus,  every  word  that  it  contains,  the 
description  of  Aaron's  vestments,  and  all  the  regulations 
connected  with  the  Levites,  are  symbols  of  things  heavenly.^ 
He  sees  mysteries  in  the  figures  of  the  book  of  Numbers 
and  in  the  names  of  the  camping-places.^  Joshua's  de- 
scriptions of  boundaries  mark  out  the  realm  of  the  heavenly 
Jerusalem;  that  is,  of  the  Church.^  The  shipwreck  of 
Jonah  shows  in  a  figure  the  passion  of  the  Lord.^  In  every 
word  of  the  Apocalypse  manifold  meanings  lie  hid.^  If 
he  did  not  accept  Origen's  threefold  sense  of  Scripture,  he 
yet  distinguished  two  senses,  which  amounted  to  much 
the  same  thing.  He  aimed,  says  Zockler,"  to  steer  between 
the  historical  and  the  allegorical,  as  between  Scylla  and 
Charybdis.  This  may  have  been  his  aim,  but  it  seems, 
nevertheless,  to  have  been  particularly  easy  for  him  to 
fall  into  the  Charybdis  of  allegorizing. 

About  one  hundred  years  after  Origen  fled  from  Alexan- 
dria, Athanasius  became  bishop  of  the  Alexandrian  Church. 
If  Eusebius  of  Ciesarea  was,  as  an  interpreter,  an  Origenist 
with  a  leaning  toward  a  more  historical  method,  Athana- 
sius was  an  Origenist  with  a  leaning  toward  a  more  logical 
method.  He  was,  indeed,  a  theologian  rather  than  an 
exegete,  but  the  dominance  of  his  theology  in  some  sec- 
tions of  the  Church  gives  a  special  interest  to  his  exegetical 
method,  and  especially  as  he  was  distinguished  among  early 

'  See  To  Pauliniis,  8.  ^  /j/j^  s  75^-^^  g 

'  Ifiid.  *  Ibid.,  8.  •  Hicronymus,  p.  370. 


THE   ALEXANDRIAN   TYPE   OF   EXEGESIS  12 1 

theologians  for  the  constancy  and  variety  of  his  appeal  to 
the  word  of  God.  His  view  of  inspiration  was  that  of 
Origen,  though  perhaps  somewhat  more  rigid.  The 
Bible,  he  says,  was  spoken  and  written  by  God  in  such 
manner  that  it  contains  no  disagreement  whatever.^  To 
admit  a  disagreement  would  be  the  same  as  admitting  that 
the  Father  can  lie.  Fortunately  for  this  presupposition, 
Athanasius  was  as  deficient  in  the  critical  sense,  as  incapable 
of  seeing  the  disagreements,  as  were  the  other  early  theo- 
logians. Athanasius  saw  no  development  of  truth  through 
the  ages  of  biblical  history,  and  no  differences  of  doctrinal 
type.  All  parts  of  the  Bible  were  equally  good,  in  his 
judgment,  as  sources  of  proof -texts.  As  he  lived  a  century 
later  than  Origen,  during  which  time  the  Church  had 
gone  through  a  great  conflict  for  its  faith,  we  are  not  sur- 
prised to  find  that  his  exegesis  was  more  conspicuously 
subordinated  to  the  creed. 

A  few  typical  illustrations  of  Athanasian  exegesis  will 
support  the  statements  just  made  about  it.  In  his  book 
Against  the  Heathen  ^  Athanasius  discusses  Gen.  i :  26, 
"Let  us  make  man  in  our  image  and  after  our  likeness." 
"  Some  one  was  with  God,"  says  Athanasius,  "  to  whom  he 
spoke  when  he  made  all  things.  Who  then  could  it  have 
been  save  his  Word?  For  to  whom  could  God  be  said 
to  speak  except  his  Word  ?  Or  who  was  with  him  when 
he  made  all  created  existences  except  his  Wisdom,  which 
says,  when  he  was  making  the  heaven  and  the  earth,  I 
was  present  with  him  ?  "  Note  the  steps  in  this  Athanasian 
exegesis.     The  Hebrew  suggests  that  God,  when  about  to 

*  Festal  Epistle,  19.  3.  '  Contra  Gentes,  46. 


122  THE   INTERPRETATION   OF   THE    BIBLE 

create  man,  made  known  his  purpose  to  one  or  more  other 
beings.  Athanasius  assumes  that  the  passage  refers  to 
only  one  besides  God,  and  then  declares  this  one  to  have 
been  the  Word.  "  To  whom  could  God  be  said  to  speak 
except  to  his  Word  ?  "  Athanasius  treats  his  interpretation 
as  self-evident.  However,  he  finds  confirmation  of  his 
view  in  Prov.  8  by  assuming  that  "wisdom"  is  the  same 
as  the  Son  of  God. 

In  The  Incarnation  of  the  Word  ^  Athanasius  answers 
the  question  why  the  death  of  Jesus  was  a  death  on  the 
cross,  and  this  is  his  biblical  argument.  Jesus  came  to  bear 
the  curse  which  was  laid  on  us,  and  how  else  could  he  have 
become  a  curse  except  by  receiving  the  death  set  for  a 
curse?  That  is  the  cross,  as  it  is  written,  "Cursed  is  he 
that  hangeth  on  a  tree  "  (Deut.  21:  23).  But  it  is  of  course 
well  known  at  present  that  the  cross  was  not  a  Jewish 
mode  of  capital  punishment,  and  hence  was  not  contem- 
plated in  Deut.  21:23,  Again,  Athanasius  says  that  if 
the  Lord's  death  is  the  ransom  of  all,  and  by  his  death  the 
middle  wall  of  partition  is  broken  down,  and  the  calling  of 
the  nations  is  brought  about,  how  would  he  have  called 
us  to  him  had  he  not  been  crucified  ?  For  it  is  only  on  the 
cross  that  a  man  dies  with  his  hands  spread  out.  Finally, 
he  argues  that  a  death  on  the  cross,  that  is,  in  the  air,  was 
fitting  in  order  that  the  Lord  might  clear  the  air  of  the 
malignity  of  the  devil  and  of  all  kinds  of  demons. 

It  is  quite  obvious  that  all  this  exegesis  is  in  the  true 
Alexandrian  line  —  mystical  and  wholly  inconclusive. 
The  same  must  be  said  of  Athanasius'  interpretation  of 

'  De  Incarnatione,  25. 


THE   ALEXANDRIAN   TYPE   OF   EXEGESIS 


123 


Is.  6:3,  which  is  found  in  the  short  treatise  on  Luke 
10:22.^  The  words  to  be  explained  are  those  on  the 
holiness  of  Jehovah  by  the  seraphim  in  the  temple.  The 
word  "holy,"  thrice  repeated,  proves,  says  Athanasius, 
that  the  three  subsistences  are  perfect,  just  as  in  saying 
"Lord"  they  declare  the  one  essence.  Thus  it  is  assumed 
that  the  triple  repetition  of  the  word  "holy"  has  a  mystical 
theological  significance.  It  is  also  assumed  that  the  par- 
ticular mystery  to  which  it  points  is  that  of  the  Christian 
Trinity.  But  further,  the  repetition  of  the  word  "holy" 
does  not  merely  ^w^^e^/;  it  proves  that  the  three  subsistences 
{i.e.  for  Athanasius,  the  Father,  the  Son,  and  the  Holy 
Spirit)  are  perfect.  And  then,  finally,  the  fact  that  the 
seraphim  spoke  the  word  "Lord"  but  once,  after  a  three- 
fold repetition  of  the  word  "holy,"  declares  that  these  three 
subsistences  are  "one  essence."  Thus  out  of  a  simple 
poetical  acknowledgment  of  the  holiness  of  Jehovah  there 
is  spun  the  most  abstruse  of  theological  doctrines  ! 

The  masterpiece  of  Athanasian  exegesis  is  the  discussion 
of  Prov.  8:22.^  It  is  highly  and  variously  characteristic 
of  patristic  exegesis  that  its  great  christological  proof-text 
was  taken  from  Proverbs.  Athanasius  does  not  raise  the 
question  who  or  what  was  meant  by  "wisdom"  in  this 
famous  passage.  He  simply  assumes,  as  others  had  long 
done,  that  it  was  the  Word,  Christ.  After  this  assumption 
had  been  made,  the  way  was  plain  and  easy.  The  state- 
ment with  which  the  passage  began  in  the  text  of  Athana- 
sius was  "  The  Lord  created  me,"  but  since  it  was  a  fore- 
gone  conclusion   that   the   passage   concerned    the   Son, 

*  In  illud  omnia,  6.  6.  ^  Oratio,  2.  44-72. 


124  THE   INTERPRETATION   OF  THE   BIBLE 

Athanasius  declared  that  the  word  "create"  meant  to 
"beget."  Such  was  the  sovereign  manner  in  which  he 
removed  obstacles !  Now  since  Christ  was  begotten,  — • 
this  is  the  main  contention  of  the  writer,  —  he  was  an 
offspring,  but  not,  as  the  heretical  Arians  affirmed,  a 
creature.  But  these  illustrations  must  suffice  for  Athana- 
sius. 

There  was  one  theologian  of  greater  influence  in  the 
ancient  Church  than  Athanasius,  and  whose  writings  have 
had  far  greater  power  in  subsequent  centuries,  to  wit, 
Augustin,  bishop  of  Hippo,  born  just  a  hundred  years  after 
the  death  of  Origen. 

Augustin  studied  the  Scriptures  in  a  Latin  translation. 
He  had  no  knowledge  of  Hebrew,^  and  did  not  deem 
such  knowledge  necessary.  The  Greek  translation  of 
the  Old  Testament  was  for  him  as  truly  inspired  as 
was  the  original  itself.  The  translators  were  themselves 
prophets.^  Their  work  differed  somewhat  from  the  origi- 
nal, he  knew,  but  he  regarded  these  differences  as  divinely 
suited  to  an  edition  of  the  Scriptures  for  the  Gentiles.^ 
For  this  reason  he  urged  Jerome  to  translate  from  the 
Greek  rather  than  from  the  Hebrew.^ 

Augustin,  Hke  Origen,  found  his  chief  pleasure  in  Bible 
study  in  the  search  after  a  hidden  sense.  He  tells  us  in 
his  Confessions  that  he  heard  Ambrose  ^vith  delight  as  he 
argued  from  2  Cor.  3 : 6  that  we  are  to  go  back  of  the 
literal  meaning  of  Scripture,  and  seek  a  spiritual  sense. ^ 

•  Civitas  Dei,  11.  5.  *  De  doctrina  Christiana,  2.  15. 

'  Ihid.,  18.  43.  *  Epistola  Ixxi.  2.  ^  Confessions,  6.  6. 


THE  ALEXANDRIAN   TYPE   OF   EXEGESIS  125 

He  declares  that  he  holds  the  strict  truth  of  Bible  history/ 
and  he  regards  those  persons  as  very  daring  who  say  that  it 
is  all  to  be  understood  allegorically ;  ^  but  nevertheless  he 
makes  relatively  httle  use  of  the  Hteral  meaning.  His 
teaching  is  usually  that  which  has  been  discovered  by  the 
allegorical  method.  The  test  by  which  he  determines 
whether  a  passage  is  to  be  taken  Hterally  or  is  to  be  allego- 
rized is  practical :  would  the  proposed  interpretation  tend 
to  establish  the  reign  of  love?^  If  the  literal  meaning 
seems  perverse,  it  is  to  be  abandoned.^ 

Augustin  held  that  a  very  large  part  of  Scripture  is  to  be 
understood  both  hterally  and  figuratively.  Nearly  all  the 
transactions  of  the  Old  Testament  are  to  be  taken  both  as 
histories  and  as  allegories.^  His  chief  interest,  as  has  been 
said,  lay  in  the  allegorical  interpretation,  and  this  inter- 
pretation was  fruitful  largely  in  proportion  to  the  initial 
difficulty  in  extracting  any  spiritual  meaning  whatsoever 
from  a  passage.^  As  with  Origen,  so  with  Augustin,  the 
simpler  a  thing  is,  the  more  difficult  he  made  it.^ 

All  that  has  now  been  said  of  Augustin's  method  will  be 
illustrated  by  the  instances  of  interpretation  which  follow, 
and  these  will  also  serve  to  show  what  the  Alexandrian 
type  of  exegesis  could  accompKsh  with  the  aid  of  great 
intellectual  ability. 

In  Augustin's  day  some  people  made  the  account  of 


»  Civitas  Dei,  13.  21.  '  Ibid.,  17.  3. 

^  De  doctrina  Christiana,  3.  23.  ■*  Confessions,  6.  6. 

^  De  doctrina  Christiana,  3.  32 ;   De  mendacio,  36. 

^  De  doctrina  Christiana,  2.  7;   Contra  Faustum,  22.  94. 

^  Bigg,  Christian  Platonists  of  Alexandria,  p.  132. 


126  THE   INTERPRETATION   OF   THE   BIBLE 

Eden  wholly  allegorical.  This  was  distasteful  to  him. 
He  declares  that  there  was  a  real  terrestrial  paradise 
wherein  were  rivers  and  trees.  But  having  affirmed  this 
point,  he  continues  as  follows:  "No  one  denies  that  para- 
dise may  signify  the  life  of  the  blessed ;  its  four  rivers,  the 
four  virtues ;  its  trees,  all  useful  knowledge ;  its  fruit,  the 
customs  of  the  godly;  its  tree  of  life,  wisdom  herself,  the 
mother  of  all  good ;  and  the  tree  of  the  knowledge  of 
good  and  evil,  the  experience  of  a  broken  commandment." 
But  even  this  is  not  all  that  paradise  means.  These 
things,  says  Augustin,  can  also  and  more  profitably  be 
understood  of  the  Church,  so  that  they  become  prophetic 
foreshadowings  of  things  to  come.  "  Paradise  is  the 
Church;  the  four  rivers  are  the  four  Gospels;  the  fruit 
trees  are  the  saints,  and  the  fruit  their  works ;  the  tree  of 
life  is  the  Holy  of  Holies,  Christ ;  the  tree  of  the  knowl- 
edge of  good  and  evil,  the  will's  free  choice."  And  he 
concludes,  "These  and  similar  allegorical  interpretations 
may  be  suitably  put  upon  paradise  without  giving  offence 
to  any  one."  ^  Here  we  have  an  illustration  of  the  ex- 
tremely elastic  nature  of  the  allegorical  principle.  The 
four  rivers  of  paradise  may  be  taken  to  signify  the  four 
cardinal  virtues,  or  the  four  Gospels;  the  tree  of  life  as 
wisdom  or  as  Christ,  and  so  forth.  Thus  it  appears  that 
any  passage  of  Scripture  which  is  to  be  taken  in  a  spiritual 
sense  may  have  an  almost  unlimited  number  of  meanings. 
Another  characteristic  illustration  of  Augustin's  inter- 
pretation is  furnished  by  the  ark.  This  is  regarded  as  a 
figure  of  the  city  of  God  sojourning  in  this  world,  that  is 

*  CivUas  Dei,  13.  21. 


THE   ALEXANDRIAN   TYPE   OF   EXEGESIS 


127 


to  say,  of  the  Church,  which  is  rescued  by  the  wood  on 
which  Christ  hung.  Its  very  dimensions  represent  the 
human  body  in  which  he  came.  For  the  length  of  the 
human  body  is  six  times  its  breadth  and  ten  times  its  depth 
or  thickness.  Therefore  the  ark  was  made  three  hundred 
cubits  long,  fifty  broad,  and  thirty  high.  The  door  in  its 
side  certainly  signified  the  wound  in  the  side  of  the  crucified 
one,  for  by  this  those  who  come  to  him  enter.^  Augustin 
modestly  concedes  that  another  man  might  give  a  better 
exposition  of  the  ark  than  his,  but  he  is  certain  that,  how- 
ever its  details  are  understood,  it  must  be  referred  to  the 
Church. 

The  writings  of  Augustin  on  the  Psalms  would  fill  a 
volume  with  allegories  like  those  which  have  been  cited. 
It  is  well  worth  noting  that  he  gave  relatively  more  atten- 
tion to  the  titles  of  the  Psalms  than  to  the  Psalms  them- 
selves, probably  because  the  titles  are  so  obscure,  for  he 
testifies  that  the  more  obscure  the  Scriptures  are,  the  more 
wonderful  are  their  secrets.  According  to  this  valuable 
principle,  the  titles  as  given  in  the  Greek  translation  of  the 
Psalms  are  far  more  attractive  than  they  are  in  the  original, 
for  they  are  far  more  unintelligible.  Let  us  notice  a  few 
instances  of  his  treatment  of  these  titles.  The  ninety- 
seventh  Psalm,  which  in  the  Hebrew  text  has  no  super- 
scription, had  the  following  in  Augustin's  Bible :  "A  Psalm 
of  David  when  his  land  was  restored."^  This  restoration 
of  David's  land,  says  Augustin,  is  the  resurrection  of  the 
flesh,  for  after  Christ's  resurrection,  all  those  things  which 
are  sung  in  the  Psalms  were  done.     In  the  title  of  Ps.  8 

'  Civitas  Dei,  15.  26.  ^  Enarrationes  in  Psalmos,  xcvii. 


128  THE    INTERPRETATION    OF   THE   BIBLE 

Augustin  had  the  word  "wine-presses,"  and  he  interpreted 
it  as  signifying  "churches,"  because  in  them  the  good  are 
separated  from  the  bad,  even  as  in  the  wine-presses  the  juice 
of  the  grape  is  separated  from  that  which  is  thrown  away.* 
The  title  of  the  seventy-third  Psalm  assigns  it  to  Asaph,  but 
Augustin  discovers  that  this  word  means  "synagogue," 
and  accordingly,  in  an  elaborate  introduction,  he  endeavors 
to  show  that  the  Psalm  is  the  voice  of  the  synagogue.^ 
But  enough  regarding  his  treatment  of  the  titles. 

Now  as  to  the  content  of  the  Psalms.  No  Psalm  wholly 
escapes  allegorical  interpretation.  Even  the  twenty-third 
is  an  allegory.  The  speaker  in  it  is  the  Church ;  the 
shepherd  is  Jesus.  The  water  of  refreshing  is  the  water  of 
baptism.  Other  details  are  similarly  treated.^  Psalm  8 
was  rather  more  fruitful  in  spiritual  meaning  than  Ps. 
23.  Thus  the  reference  to  a  "glory  above  the  heaven" 
signifies  the  exaltation  of  Christ.  The  heavens  which  the 
psalmist  says  were  the  work  of  God's  finger  are  interpreted 
as  the  Old  Testament  and  the  New,  The  moon  is  the 
Church,  and  the  stars  are  individual  local  churches.  "All 
sheep  and  oxen  "  arc  the  holy  souls  both  of  men  and  angels. 
Thus  runs  his  entire  interpretation  of  the  Psalm. 

Augustin  allegorized  the  New  Testament  as  well  as  the 
Old,  but  of  this  treatment  a  single  example  must  suffice. 
Jesus  bade  the  Samaritan  woman  go  and  call  her  husband, 
and  Augustin  finds  a  hidden  sense  in  the  word  "husband." 
What  the  woman  was  sent  to  call  was  her  undersianding. 
But  if  this  is  the  meaning  of  husband,  how  about  the  five 
husbands  whom  the  woman  has  already  had?    Augustii 

*  Enarrationes  in  Psalmos,  viii.  ^  Ibid.,  Ixxiii.  ^  Ibid.,  xxiii. 


THE   ALEXANDRIAN   TYPE   OF   EXEGESIS  129 

replies  that  these  are  possibly  the  five  books  of  Moses,  but 
more  probably  the  reference  is  to  the  five  senses.  As  these 
senses  have  ruled  over  her  body,  they  are  called  "hus- 
bands."^ 

Again,  to  Augustin  as  to  Philo,  the  numbers  of  Scripture 
were  an  inexhaustible  mine  of  spiritual  meaning.  Knowl- 
edge of  numbers  he  held  to  be  among  the  essential  things 
which  an  interpreter  should  possess.^  It  mattered  not 
whether  a  number  stood  in  a  poem  or  in  a  plain  historical 
statement;  in  any  case  it  might  yield  a  spiritual  sense. 
Thus,  e.g.,  he  saw  a  "great  mystery"  in  the  number  of  fish 
taken  by  the  disciples,  as  recorded  in  the  last  chapter  of 
John.  Here  is  his  solution  of  the  mystery.  Ten  is  the 
number  of  the  Law,  but  since  the  Law  must  be  aided  by 
grace,  that  is,  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  since  the  Spirit  is  de- 
noted by  the  number  seven,  we  add  this  to  the  number  of 
the  Law  and  get  seventeen.  Now  if  we  add  together  the 
numbers  from  one  to  seventeen,  we  have  the  number  of 
fish  which  the  disciples  took,  namely,  153. 

It  is  to  be  noted  further  that  this  number  153  contains 
the  number  50  three  times  with  a  remainder  of  three,  and 
thus  it  is  seen  to  have  a  double  reference  to  the  mystery  of 
the  Trinity !  ^ 

It  may  be  said  in  concluding  this  statement  on  Augustin's 
interpretation  that  in  him  the  tendency  to  read  Christ  into 
the  Old  Testament  has  its  most  striking  illustration.  Pre- 
dictions of  him  are  everywhere  discovered,  and  discovered 

*  See  In  Johan.  Evang.,  Tractatum  15. 

^  De  doctrina  Christiana,  2.  25. 

^  In  Johan.  Evang.,  Tractatum  122. 


130  THE   INTERPRETATION   OF   THE   BIBLE 

as  easily  in  the  mere  numbers  of  some  unimportant  chron- 
icle of  remote  times  as  in  the  deep  longings  of  the  great 
spiritual  teachers  of  Israel.  The  genuine  Messianic 
element  in  the  Old  Testament  was  thus  buried  out  of 
sight  in  a  vast  sea  of  fictitious  predictions.  The  simple 
history  of  the  Old  Testament  was  obscured  or  totally 
eclipsed  by  the  "spiritual  truth"  which  was  juggled  out  of 
its  letter,  and  development  in  the  history  of  redemption 
was  made  impossible. 

It  is  obvious  that  Augustin's  view  of  prophecy  is  as 
certainly  condemned  by  Jesus'  conception  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament as  it  is  by  modern  scholarship.  For  Jesus  did  not 
treat  the  Old  Testament  allegorically ;  Jesus  did  not  di- 
vorce Messianic  prophecy  from  Old  Testament  life ;  and 
Jesus  did  not  make  development  in  the  history  of  redemp- 
tion impossible  by  his  view  of  prophecy. 

A  fact  may  here  be  cited  which  illustrates  at  once  Au- 
gustin's method  of  finding  Christ  in  the  Old  Testament 
and  also  his  way  of  reasoning.  It  is  this.  In  the  titles  of 
thirty-seven  Psalms  the  Greek  translation  had  the  word 
"end"  {reXo^;)  where  the  Hebrew  as  rendered  by  the 
American  revisers  has  the  words  "chief  musician."  Now 
Augustin  took  this  word  "end"  to  mean  Christ,  on  the 
ground  that  Paul  calls  Christ  "the  end  of  the  law" 
(Rom.  10:4).^  Therefore  Augustin  referred  these  thirty- 
seven  Psalms  directly  to  Christ.  Some  of  them  he  re- 
garded as  addressed  to  Christ ;  in  some  he  heard  Christ 
speak,  either  in  his  own  person  (Ps.  22)  or  in  that  of 
the  Church  (Ps.  25),  and  in  others  he  thought  that  the 

'  See  Enarrationes  in  Psalmos,  iv,  vi,  viii,  ix,  xi,  etc. 


THE   ALEXANDRIAN   TYPE   OF   EXEGESIS         131 

psalmist  spoke  ahoiit  Christ,  though  not  addressing  him 
(Ps.  19). 

Such,  then,  was  the  exegesis  of  Augustin  and  such  the 
Alexandrian  type.  The  work  of  Augustin  had,  however, 
one  great  merit,  its  moral  and  spiritual  wholesomeness. 
He  might  go  to  the  extreme  in  torturing  Scripture,  and 
utterly  destroy  its  historical  sense,  yet  that  which  he 
brought  forth,  especially  if  it  lay  in  the  sphere  of  daily 
life  rather  than  theology,  was  usually  in  line  with 
truth.  His  practical  Christian  feeling  and  balance  of 
judgment  neutralized  to  some  extent  the  errors  of  his 
method. 

To  what  extent  the  dominance  of  the  Alexandrian  type 
of  exegesis  in  the  Western  Church  was  due  to  the  influence 
of  the  great  writers  of  Alexandria,  and  to  what  extent  it 
was  the  result  of  other  forces,  need  not  now  be  considered. 
That  it  was  not  purely  an  importation  from  the  illustrious 
city  on  the  Nile  is  sufficiently  evidenced  by  Tertullian 
(died  about  220  a.d.)  and  Hippolytus  (236  a.d.),  who, 
though  contemporaries  of  Clement  of  Alexandria,  inter- 
preted the  Scriptures  in  a  thoroughly  allegorical  manner.^ 
Neither,  on  the  other  hand,  can  it  be  doubted  that  the 
influence  of  Origen,  who  was  acknowledged  to  be  the 
master  of  allegorical  interpretation,  was  a  potent  force  in 
establishing  the  Alexandrian  type  in  the  Church  of  the 
West. 

*  See,  e.g.,  Tertullian,  Adversus  Judaeos,  10;  De  anima,  7.  43;  Contra 
Marcionem,  4.  13;  De  resurreclione  carnis,  13;  HippoI\'tus,  Christ  and 
Antichrist,  6-13;   Uepl  liapoiiJilwv,  30.  21-23. 


CHAPTER  VI 

THE   SYRIAN  TYPE   OF   EXEGESIS 

When  Origen  fled  from  Alexandria  in  the  reign  of 
Caracalla  he  went  to  Palestine,  and  at  the  request  of  Theo- 
ktistus,  bishop  of  Caesarea,  and  Alexander,  bishop  of  Jeru- 
salem, expounded  the  Scriptures  publicly  for  a  season  in 
Caesarea/  Later,  when  he  had  been  deposed  from  ofifice 
in  Alexandria,  he  made  Caesarea  his  home,  and  laboring 
as  a  teacher  attracted  pupils  not  only  from  Palestine  but 
also  from  other  lands.  Among  the  latter  class  was  the 
celebrated  Gregory  Thaumaturgus.^  Pamphilus,  a  pres- 
byter of  Caesarea  who  died  in  309  a.d.,^  and  who  may  there- 
fore have  sat  at  the  feet  of  Origen,  founded  an  exegctical 
library  in  Caesarea  in  which  the  Hexapla  and  other  works 
of  Origen  were  preserved. 

This  school  at  Ca?sarea,  the  earliest  Syrian  Bible  school 
of  which  we  know,^  may  have  perpetuated  the  critical  spirit 
of  Origen,  in  which  case  it  was  a  true  forerunner  of  the 
more  famous  school  of  Antioch.'"' 

'  See  Eusebius,  Church  History,  6.  19.  16-17.  ^  Ibid.,  6.  30. 

^  Harnack,  AUchristliche  Literatur,  i.  2.  543. 

*  Kihn,  Bedeutung  der  antioch.  Schule,  p.  10,  says,  on  the  authority  of 
Moehlcr,  that  Clement  of  Alexandria  founded  a  school  at  Jerusalem  in 
209  A.D. 

*  Lucian  studied  in  the  school  at  Cccsarea.     See  Kihn,  op.  cit.,  p.  72. 

132 


THE  SYRIAN  TYPE   OF  EXEGESIS 


133 


Of  the  origin  of  this  school  at  Antioch  no  definite  infor- 
mation has  been  preserved.  Dorotheus,  a  presbyter  of 
Antioch,  who,  Eusebius  tells  us,  was  devoted  to  the  study 
of  Hebrew  and  able  to  read  it  with  faciUty,*  and  Lucian, 
famed  for  his  sacred  learning,^  who  also  was  a  presbyter  at 
Antioch,  though  born  at  Samosata  and  educated  in  Scrip- 
ture at  Edessa,  were  influential  teachers,  and  are  perhaps 
to  be  regarded  as  the  founders  of  the  Antiochian  school  or 
method.^  The  work  of  Lucian  of  which  the  influence  sur- 
vived longest  was  his  recension  of  the  text  of  the  New 
Testament  and  of  the  Septuagint.  Jerome  says  that  in  his 
day  certain  copies  of  the  Scripture  (i.e.,  apparently,  of  the 
Septuagint)  bOre  Lucian's  name.  Of  his  pupils  the  most 
famous  were  Arius  and  Eusebius  of  Nicomedia. 

Greater  than  the  name  of  Lucian  was  that  of  Diodore, 
who  was  a  presbyter  in  Antioch  and  after  378  a.d.  bishop 
of  Tarsus.  Jerome  says  that  he  enjoyed  a  great  reputa- 
tion while  still  a  presbyter,*  and  Basil  in  acknowledging 
the  loan  of  two  of  Diodore's  own  works,  commends  the 
ability  of  both,  and  says  that  he  has  retained  one  for  the 

'  Church  History,  7.  32.  2. 

^  Jerome,  De  viris  illustribtis,  77;    Eusebius,  Church  History,  9.  6. 

^Lucian  died  in  312  a.d.  Dorotheus  flourished  280-300  a.d.  See 
Harnack,  op.  cit.,  i.  2.  532.  Suidas,  quoted  in  Harnack,  op.  cit.,  i.  2.  528, 
ascribes  the  origin  of  the  school  to  Lucian.  Kihn,  op.  cit.,  regards  Theo- 
philus,  bishop  of  Antioch  (i68  a.d.),  Serapion,  successor  of  Theophilus 
(190  A.D.),  and  Malchion,  a  presbyter,  as  forerunners  of  the  school.  The 
exegesis  of  Basil  the  Great  of  Cappadocia,  who  went  to  the  extreme  of 
literalness  and  rarely  allegorized,  shows  that  some  features  of  the  Antio- 
chian method  at  least  were  found  in  writers  of  the  Eastern  Church  who 
had  not  felt  the  influence  of  Antioch.     Basil  was  educated  at  Athens. 

*  De  viris  illustribus,  119. 


134  THE    INTERPRETATION   OF   THE   BIBLE 

purpose  of  transcribing  it.^  Diodore  is  said  to  have  written 
commentaries  on  the  Epistles  ^  and  to  have  written  a 
treatise  on  principles  of  interpretation,^  the  first  work  of 
the  sort  by  a  Christian  scholar ;  but  probably  his  greatest 
monument  was  his  two  famous  pupils,  Theodore  of  Mop- 
suestia  and  John  Chr}^sostom.  In  the  works  of  these  men 
we  become  acquainted  with  the  best  that  was  accompUshed 
by  the  West  Syrian  school  of  Bible  study. 

Of  the  East  Syrian  school,  mth  centres  at  Edessa  and 
Nisibis,  the  most  illustrious  son,  Ephrem,*  was  a  poet 
rather  than  a  bibhcal  critic,  and  though  his  influence  on 
the  Eastern  Church  may  have  exceeded  that  of  any  other 
scholar  of  his  century,  his  significance  for  the  history 
of  interpretation  is  not  great.  There  were  differences  be- 
tween the  western  and  the  eastern  Syrian  interpreters,  the 
latter,  e.g.,  being  more  largely  controlled  by  sentiment  and 
the  former  by  reason ;  but  they  were  one  in  opposition  to 
the  allegorization  of  Scripture  which  prevailed  at  Alex- 
andria.^ 

We  turn  now  to  the  chief  representatives  of  the  West 
Syrian  school,  Theodore  and  John.  Both  were  natives  of 
Antioch  and  Greek  in  race.  John  was  born  about  347  a.d. 
and  Theodore  about  350  a.d.  Theodore  was  ordained  as 
a  presbyter  in  Antioch  in  383  a.d.,  was  made  bishop  of 

*  See  Letters,  135.  ^  Jerome,  De  viris  illustrihus,  119. 

'  The  title  in  Suidas  is  oris  diacppa  la-ropias  Kal  dWrjyoplas.  See  Chase, 
Chrysostom,  p.  10. 

*  See  Jerome,  De  viris  illustrihus,  115;  Sozomen,  Church  History, 
3.  16.  Bardesanes  and  Harmonius,  contemporaries  of  Lucian,  attained 
eminence  among  the  scholars  of  Edessa. 

"See  Dorner,  Christologie,  2.  30-31. 


THE   SYRIAN  TYPE   OF  EXEGESIS  135 

Mopsuestia  about  392  a.d.,  and  died  in  428  a.d.  John 
became  a  presbyter  in  386  a.d.,  bishop  of  Constantinople 
in  398  A.D.,  and  died  in  exile  in  407  a.d.  Both  had  been 
pupils  in  the  school  of  Libanius,  a  sophist,  and  on  con- 
version both  came  under  the  influence  of  Diodore,  the  head 
of  a  monastery  near  Antioch.^  Both  were  ascetic  in  their 
manner  of  Hfe  and  remained  unmarried.  John  was 
richly  endowed  as  a  preacher ;  Theodore  as  a  critic  and 
interpreter.  The  writings  of  John  have  been  largely  pre- 
served ;  those  of  Theodore  have  largely  perished. 

The  great  significance  of  these  men  for  the  history  of 
interpretation  is  that  they  went  far  toward  a  scientific 
method  of  exegesis.  The  commentary  of  Theodore  on 
the  minor  epistles  of  Paul  is  the  first  and  almost  the  last 
exegetical  book  produced  in  the  ancient  Church  which  will 
bear  any  comparison  with  modern  commentaries.  Chrysos- 
tom  did  not  write  commentaries,  but  much  of  the  inter- 
pretation of  Scripture  in  his  homilies  is  sound  and  adequate. 

Theodore  and  John  had  predecessors  indeed  in  men  Hke 
Diodore  and  Lucian,  and  in  others  no  doubt  whose  names 
have  not  been  preserved ;  but  still  their  works  are  for  the 
historical  student  essentially  a  new  phenomenon.  Exe- 
gesis has  at  last  come  down  out  of  the  clouds,  and  has 
planted  its  feet  firmly  on  the  earth.  For  the  first  time  there 
is  here  a  wholly  serious  and  determined  effort  to  find  out 
what  the  sacred  authors  meant.  For  the  first  time,  also, 
there  is  a  resolute  stand  made  against  the  ancient,  univer- 

1  Both  Theodore  and  John  used  the  Septuagint  in  their  Bible  study, 
though  the  former,  at  least,  had  some  knowledge  of  Hebrew.  See  Kihn, 
op.  cit.,  p.  99. 


136  THE   INTERPRETATION   OF  THE   BIBLE 

sal,  and  ecclesiastically  sanctioned  method  of  allegorical 
interpretation.  The  potential  importance  of  this  step  was 
comparable  with  the  act  of  Luther.  The  Syrian  school  did 
not  maintain  itself,  and  the  waves  of  the  old  false  method 
gradually  buried  it  entirely  out  of  sight  and  out  of  the  mem- 
ory of  the  Church ;  but  nevertheless  it  contained  the  germ 
of  a  higher  and  purer  knowledge  of  divine  truth,  and  there- 
fore the  germ  of  a  better  Christianity  and  a  better  civiUza- 
tion  than  were  attained  in  the  next  thousand  years. 

There  were  several  important  points  in  which  Theodore 
and  John,  and  the  school  which  they  represented,  ap- 
proximated a  scientific  method  of  treating  the  Bible.  Of 
Theodore,  at  least,  if  not  of  John,  it  can  be  said  that  he 
was  less  hampered  in  his  interpretation  by  the  inherited 
view  of  inspiration  than  any  scholar  before  him  had  been. 
He  occasionally  criticises  the  language  of  Paul,*  and  even 
denies  that  Proverbs  and  Ecclesiastes  are  divinely  in- 
spired.^ He  shows  a  freedom  in  discussing  the  canon  both 
of  the  Old  and  the  New  Testament  which  is  irrecon- 
cilable with  the  traditional  mechanical  theory  of  inspira- 
tion.^ Chrysostom  appears  to  have  been  less  completely 
emancipated  from  the  old  view.  For  though  he  knows 
of  something  higher  than  the  written  word,  namely,  having 
God  speak  directly  to  the  soul  as  he  did  to  Noah  and 
Abraham,^  he  yet  uses  the  figure  of  the  lyre  in  setting  forth 
his  conception  of  man's  relation  to  the  Spirit  in  the  pro- 

'■  See,  e.g.,  Ad  Galatas,  16.  ^  See  Kihn,  op.  ciL,  p.  104. 

'  According  to  Kihn,  op.  cit.,  p.  91,  he  rejected  from  the  Canon,  Song 
of  Songs,  Job,  the  titles  of  the  Psahns,  and  possibly  also  Chronicles. 
*  See  Homilies  on  Matthew,  i. 


THE    SYRIAN   TYPE   OF   EXEGESIS  137 

duction  of  the  sacred  writings/  and  seems  to  have  held 
both  to  the  inspiration  of  the  Greek  version  of  the  Old 
Testament  ^  and  to  the  view  which  was  shared  by  Origen 
that  Ezra  was  divinely  inspired  to  reproduce  the  Old 
Testament  writings  after  they  had  been  for  the  most  part 
destroyed.^  It  is  hardly  possible  then  to  think  of  Chrysos- 
tom  as  having  reached  a  view  of  inspiration  which  was 
essentially  less  harmful  to  a  true  exegesis  than  was  that  of 
the  Alexandrian  school.  It  is,  however,  to  be  said  that 
httle  stress  is  laid  by  him  on  the  supernatural  inspiration 
of  the  Scriptures.  He  continually  urges  men  to  read  the 
Bible,*  but  evidently  does  so  in  the  belief  that  the  truth 
will  commend  itself  to  them  as  from  God. 

Again,  Theodore  and  John  may  be  said  to  have  gone  far 
toward  a  scientific  method  of  exegesis  inasmuch  as  they  saw 
clearly  the  necessity  of  determining  the  original  sense  of 
Scripture  in  order  to  make  any  profitable  use  of  the  same. 
To  have  kept  this  end  steadily  in  view  was  a  great  achieve- 
ment. It  made  their  work  stand  out  in  strong  contrast  by 
the  side  of  that  of  the  Alexandrian  school.  Their  inter- 
pretation was  extremely  plain  and  simple  as  compared 
with  that  of  Origen.  They  utterly  rejected  the  allegorical 
method.  Chrysostom  does  indeed  occasionally  use  it,  as 
when,  e.g.,  he  explains  the  tombs  in  which  the  demoniacs 
hid  as  signifying  the  "resorts  of  harlots";^  but  in  Theo- 

'  Homilies  on  John,  i.  ^  Homilies  on  Matthew,  5. 

^  Homilies  on  Hebrews,  8. 

*  See  Chase,  Chrysostom,  p.  151.  "I  do  not  understand  the  apostle 
(Paul)  by  reason  of  any  intellectual  ability  or  acuteness  of  my  own,  but 
because  I  keep  continually  in  his  company  and  love  him  much." 

^  Homilies  on  Matthew,  28. 


138  THE   INTERPRETATION   OF  THE   BIBLE 

dore  I  have  found  no  single  instance  of  allegorizing.*  Thus 
their  break  with  the  characteristic  principle  of  all  Chris- 
tian exegesis  since  Clement  of  Alexandria  was  practically 
clear-cut  and  complete.  We  find,  especially  in  Theodore, 
a  biting  sarcasm  poured  upon  those  who  allegorize  the 
word  of  God,  who  say  that  "Adam  is  not  Adam,  nor  para- 
dise paradise,  nor  a  serpent  a  serpent,"  and  who  call 
their  folly  "spiritual  interpretation."- 

There  is  yet  one  sahent  feature  of  Theodore's  inter- 
pretation of  the  Old  Testament  that  marks  his  affinity 
with  modern  scientific  exegesis,  and  that  is  his  view  of 
prophecy.  His  break  with  ecclesiastical  tradition  at  this 
point  was  radical.  He  did  not  read  the  New  Testament 
into  the  Old.  He  did  not  find  the  Old  Testament  per- 
meated with  predictions  of  Christ  and  the  Church,  as  did 
Origen,  for  example,  or  Augustin.  His  position  approxi- 
mated that  of  Jesus,  though  apparently  without  his  knowl- 
edge of  this  fact.  He  saw  a  Messianic  element  in  a  very 
few  Psalms,  as,  e.g.,  the  iioth,  but  the  great  majority  of 
those  which  had  long  been  referred  to  Christ  he  referred 
to  various  kings  of  Israel.  He  maintained  that  his  view 
"secured  for  prophecy  a  historical  basis,  and  magnified 
the  Christian  economy  as  that  which  converted  into  sober 
fact  the  highest  imagery  of  the  ancient  Scriptures."  ^ 
But  this  protest  against  a  false  view  of  prophecy,  even  as 
the  Antiochene  protest  against  the  method  of  allegorical 

*  Theodore  held  that  Paul's  use  of  allegory  in  Galatians  was  merely  an 
illustration.  See  Swete,  Diet,  of  Christ.  Biog.,  article  "Theodore  of 
Mopsucstia." 

^  Ad  Galatas,  Swete's  edition,  pp.  73-75. 

'  Quoted  by  Swete,  Diet,  of  Christ.  Biog. 


THE   SYRIAN   TYPE    OF   EXEGESIS 


139 


interpretation,  was  destined  to  be  overwhelmed  by  the 
many  advocates  of  the  old  view. 

It  remains  to  notice  the  shadows  which  lie  across  the 
brilhant  record  of  Syrian  interpretation.  Chase  in  his 
admirable  study  of  Chrysostom  as  an  interpreter  says  that 
his  "besetting  sin"  was  perhaps  his  love  of  combining 
different  interpretations/  thus  leaving  the  hearer  uncertain 
what  a  particular  text  meant,  while  his  merits  were  com- 
mon sense,  vigor,  and  clearness.  The  weakest  point  in 
Theodore's  work,  according  to  Swete,^  was  his  textual 
criticism.  This  editor  bestows  high  praise  on  Theodore's 
genius  and  expository  power.^ 

Now  without  questioning  that  the  works  of  John  and 
Theodore  have  the  weaknesses  which  have  been  enu- 
merated, I  will  mention  what  impresses  me  as  the  most 
serious  defect  in  all  their  interpretation.  It  is  their  bond- 
age to  dogmatic  presupposition.^  It  is  a  defect  which 
they  share  indeed  with  their  predecessors  and  their  contem- 
poraries, but  this  fact  does  not  alter  its  character.  It  is 
more  noticeable  in  them  than  in  an  Origen  or  an  Augustin 
because  of  its  sharp  contrast  with  their  grammatic-his- 
torical  principle.  One  who  sets  out  to  discover  an  author's 
meaning  is  as  much  at  fault  if  he  approaches  him  with  a 
dogmatic  bias  as  he  is  if  he  allegorizes  what  his  author 
says.     Both   Chrysostom   and   Theodore   sacrificed   their 

'  See  Chrysostom,  A  Study  in  the  History  of  Bible  Interpretation,  p.  193. 

^  Introduction  to  his  edition  of  Theodore's  Commentary,  p.  70. 

8  Ibid.,  p.  78. 

*  Chrysostom  says  that  the  apostles  plainly  did  not  hand  down  all 
their  teaching  in  a  written  form  but  much  of  it  orally,  and  that  both  forms 
are  equally  trustworthy.     See  Kihn,  op.  cit.,  p.  142. 


I40  THE    INTERPRETATION   OF   THE   BIBLE 

fundamental  principle  again  and  again,  and  read  the  eccle- 
siastical creed  into  the  Old  Testament  and  the  New  with 
the  same  ease  with  which  it  was  done  by  Clement  or  Atha- 
nasius. 

In  the  case  of  Chrysostom  the  following  illustrations  will 
establish  what  has  been  said.  It  was  Christ,  he  declares, 
who  gave  the  laws  of  the  Old  Testament/  He  simply 
assumes  this  as  self-evident.  Again,  he  takes  for  granted 
that  the  title  "Son  of  God"  is  to  be  understood  metaphysi- 
cally. He  does  not  investigate  its  meaning  as  used  by 
Jesus  or  by  New  Testament  writers.'  Had  he  not  ac- 
cepted the  traditional  view  as  unquestionable,  he  would 
hardly  have  argued  as  he  does  from  Matt.  16:16-17. 
The  similarity  between  the  words  of  Peter  to  Jesus,  "Thou 
art  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the  Hving  God,"  and  the  words  of 
Jesus  to  Peter,  "Thou  art  Simon,  son  of  Jonas,"  shows, 
says  Chrysostom,  that  Jesus  "  is  so  Son  of  God  as  the  other 
son  of  Jonas."  ^  Had  Chrysostom  been  capable  of  divest- 
ing himself  of  the  inherited  beliefs,  and  capable  of  esti- 
mating christological  texts  as  impartially  as  he  did  many 
others,  he  would  have  recognized  that  this  basis  was  al- 
together inadequate  for  the  support  of  his  great  conclu- 
sion. 

Once  more,  it  is  the  traditionalist  and  not  the  scholar  who 
sees  a  sign  of  the  Godhead  of  Jesus  in  his  forgiveness  of 
sins,'*  who  takes  the  frankincense  and  myrrh  of  the  magi 
as  evidence  that  they  regarded  Jesus  as  God,^  and  who 

*  See  Homilies  on  Matthew,  16.  7;   29.  3;  82.  i. 
^  Ibid.,  41.  *  Ibid.,  29.  2. 

s  Ibid.,  54.  6  Ibid.,  8.  2. 


THE   SYRIAN   TYPE    OF   EXEGESIS  141 

assumes  that  the  same  doctrine  is  established  by  the  fact 
that  Jesus  told  the  secrets  of  men/  In  hke  manner,  in 
another  place,  he  argues  from  the  words  "who  is  in  the 
bosom  of  the  Father"  that  Jesus  must  be  of  the  same  es- 
sence.^ The  Father,  he  says,  would  not  have  in  his  bosom 
one  of  another  essence. 

These  illustrations  might  be  increased  to  a  great  number. 
Whatever  freedom  Chrysostom  may  show  in  other  fields, 
when  he  comes  to  Scriptures  concerning  Christ,  he  is  bound 
hand  and  foot  by  the  theology  of  the  Church. 

If  Chrysostom  sacrificed  his  fundamental  principle  under 
the  influence  of  dogmatic  presupposition,  so  also  did 
Theodore,  though  the  latter,  as  we  have  seen,  showed  a 
good  deal  of  freedom  in  deaHng  with  the  Messianic  ele- 
ment in  the  Old  Testament.  Speaking  of  Phil.  2:7: 
"Who  being  in  the  form  of  God,"  Theodore  adds  this 
comment:  "That  is  to  say.  Lord  and  Ruler  and  Author 
of  the  universe,  for  all  these  things  which  have  been 
named  truly  appear  to  follow  the  name  of  God."  ^  But 
this  is  rather  an  expression  of  the  Church's  belief  regard- 
ing Christ  than  an  elucidation  of  the  words  of  Paul.  A 
little  later,  when  speaking  of  the  words,  "Wherefore  also 
God  highly  exalted  him,"  Theodore  says  he  does  not 
know  that  any  one  can  be  found  so  foohsh  as  to  think  that 
the  Word  of  God  was  exalted  after  the  passion.^  What 
was  exalted  then  must  have  been  the  humanity  of  Christ. 

^  Homilies  on  Matthew,  41.  i.  ^  Homilies  on  John,  15. 

^  "  Nuncupationem  Dei  subsequi  videntiir  veraciter." 
*  Swete's  edition  of  Thtodove's  Commentary  on  the  Minor  Epistles  oj 
Paul,  I.  222. 


142  THE   INTERPRETATION   OF  THE   BIBLE 

Thus  Theodore  explained  the  passage  in  Paul  by  the 
creed  of  the  Church,  just  as  Athanasius  did.  The  his- 
torical student  is  lost  in  the  theologian. 

On  the  words  that  "every  tongue  should  confess  that 
Jesus  Christ  is  Lord,"  Theodore's  comment  is  this : 
"that  all  should  adore  him,  and  that  all  should  confess 
that  Jesus  Christ  is  God  (Deum).'"  But  Paul  said 
dominus,  not  deus  (Kvpio^,  not  6e6<;).  Theodore  super- 
imposes on  the  text  the  ecclesiastical  doctrine  of  the 
person  of  Christ,  though  in  so  doing  he  clearly  denies 
his  fundamental  principle  of  interpretation.  Again,  take 
his  comment  on  Eph.  4  :  5-6 :  "One  Lord,  one  faith,  one 
baptism,  one  God  and  Father  of  all."  It  is  evident,  says 
Theodore,  that  in  saying  "one  Lord"  (unus  dominus) 
he  does  not  deny  the  Lordship  of  the  Father,  and  in  saying 
"one  God"  (unus  Deus)  he  does  not  deny  the  Godhead 
of  the  Son.^  This  conclusion  was  "evident"  to  Theodore 
simply  because  he  read  Paul's  words  in  the  light  of  the 
orthodox  theology. 

These  illustrations,  to  which  others  need  not  be  added, 
show  that  the  Syrian  type  of  exegesis  was  only  partially 
historical  in  practice.  The  principles  of  the  school  were 
not  consistently  carried  out.  To  this  end  it  was  probably 
necessary  that  the  school  should  have  been  continued 
some  generations,  and  that  other  men  in  the  spirit  and 
with  the  ability  of  John  and  Theodore  should  have  built 
on  their  foundation  and  have  popularized  their  method. 
This,  however,  was  not  to  be.     Instead  of  an  advance  and 

'  "  Evidensest  quoniam  ncque  unus  dominus  diccns,  ad  interceptionem 
Patris  dicit,  ncque  unus  Deus  dicens,  ad  interceptionem  Filii  dicit." 


THE   SYRIAN   TYPE   OF   EXEGESIS  143 

a  perfecting  of  the  type,  a  decline  set  in  with  the  next 
generation,  for  Theodoret,  the  ablest  pupil  of  Theodore, 
was  a  much  less  consistent  advocate  of  the  historical 
method  than  his  master.^  The  star  of  hope  that  had 
risen  so  auspiciously  began  to  be  darkened,  and  the 
Church  was  soon  content  to  go  the  old  way. 

When  we  reach  John  of  Damascus,  the  last  of  the  Greek 
Fathers  (born  about  7ooA.D.),all  independence  in  the  treat- 
ment of  Scripture  has  disappeared.  The  interpretation  of 
the  great  men  of  the  past  is  now  regarded  as  inspired 
and  authoritative.^  Where  that  is  wanting,  the  tradition 
handed  down  from  the  apostles  supplies  the  need  of  the. 
Church.^  The  Bible  has  ceased  to  be  a  living  book, 
warm  and  vital,  instinct  with  human  interests,  and  has 
become  a  mere  congeries  of  texts  which  are  useful  to  prove 
the  current  theology. 

Of  the  Syrian  type  of  exegesis  the  Western  Church 
furnished  no  conspicuous  example.  The  unknown  author 
or  authors  of  that  commentary  on  the  Epistles  of  Paul 
which,  until  the  Reformation,  was  ascribed  to  Ambrose, 
though  opposed  to  allegory  *  and  in  this  respect  at  one 

'  Comp.  Chase,  Chrysostom,  p.  21;  Swete's  edition  of  Theodore, 
Introduction,  p.  78.  Kihn,  op.  cit.,  pp.  64,  65,  155,  190,  puts  Theodoret 
and  even  Polychronius  above  Theodore.  This  judgment,  however,  ap- 
pears to  have  been  due  not  so  much  to  any  exegetical  defect  in  Theodore 
as  to  his  freedom  in  setting  aside  traditional  views. 

^  See  John  of  Damascus,  Exposition  of  the  Orthodox  Faith,  2.  ii. 

'  Ibid.,  4.  16. 

*  They  use  it  occasionally.  See  on  i  Cor.  13:2.  According  to  Ezek. 
28:13,  the  devil  was  once  in  paradise  and  learned  celestial  doctrines; 
for  the  "precious  stones"  there  mentioned  signify,  according  to  i  Cor. 
3:12-15,  mysteries  of  divine  teaching. 


144  "THE   INTERPRETATION   OF  THE   BIBLE 

with  the  Syrian  scholars,  were,  however,  so  completely 
dominated  by  the  traditional  theology  of  the  Church  that 
their  exegesis  is  at  a  wide  remove  from  that  of  Theodore 
of  Mopsuestia.  This  commentary  has  been  characterized 
by  the  editor  of  Theodore's  work  on  Paul's  Epistles  as 
"briefer  and  weightier"  than  that.^  "Briefer"  it  cer- 
tainly is,  and  "less  discursive,"  but  inasmuch  as  it  approxi- 
mates the  grammatic-historical  method  far  less  closely  than 
does  Theodore,  and  inasmuch  as  it  is  always  concerned  to 
justify  the  doctrines  of  the  Church,  it  is  hardly  possible  to 
regard  its  explanations  as  "weightier"  than  those  of  the 
eastern  bishop.  Moreover,  its  brevity  is  not  altogether 
to  be  commended.  It  often  passes  over  points  in  the 
text  which  need  explanation,  as,  e.g.,  the  important  and 
difficult  verses,  Phil.  1:12-17  or  Eph.  6:13-17,  and  in 
general  all  biographical  and  geographical  references.  It  is 
relatively  full  on  all  passages  which  are  or  were  imagined 
to  be  theological  in  character,^  but  is  quite  fragmentary  on 
all  other  aspects  of  the  text.  It  seldom  investigates  words, 
or  takes  notice  of  grammatical  details.  Its  explanations 
are  very  often  presented  without  grounds  of  support,  as 
though  thought  to  be  self-evident.^  It  rarely  refers  to  the 
views  of  other  scholars,  and  rarely  also  to  such  Scriptures 
as  might  throw  light  on  the  passage  under  discussion.  Its 
characteristic  feature  is  its  interpretation  of  doctrinal  pas- 
sages,   especially  those  which  concern    Christ,  and    this 

*  Swete,  op.  cit.,  Introduction,  p.  78. 

^  In  Theodore's  commentary  on  Philippians  atout  i  of  the  entire  space 
is  given  to  the  passage  2  :  5-1 1,  which  {)assage  amounts  to  only  ^  of  the 
Epistle. 

^  See,  e.g.,  Ad  Rom.,  3.  26;  8.  13;  Ad  Ephes.,  6.  11. 


THE   SYRIAN   TYPE   OF   EXEGESIS  145 

interpretation  is  most  obviously  not  historical,  but  dog- 
matic. Thus,  e.g.,  when  the  author  comes  upon  the  double 
name  "Jesus  Christ,"  he  affirms  that  it  is  employed  to 
indicate  that  he  is  both  God  and  Man/  He  is  so  intent 
on  emphasizing  this  idea,  that  in  the  explanation  of  a 
doubtful  passage,  as,  e.g.,  Rom.  9:5,  he  quite  forgets 
to  present  both  possible  renderings.  Moreover,  the  ac- 
cepted Church  doctrines  are  so  sure  in  his  thought  that  he 
finds  their  derivation  from  Scripture  a  matter  altogether 
too  easy.  In  this  point  his  commentary  is  a  conspicuous 
illustration  of  what  we  meet  henceforth  in  the  writings  of 
the  Church  for  a  thousand  years. 

We  conclude,  then,  that  the  Syrian  type  of  exegesis  found 
no  sympathetic  representative  in  the  Western  Church. 
The  explanation  of  this  sad  fact  may  perhaps  be  found 
partly  in  the  hold  which  Augustin  had  taken  upon  the 
thought  of  the  Church,  and  partly  in  the  domination  of 
ecclesiasticism. 

^  Ad  Philippensios,  i.  i;   2.  5;  Epistula  i  ad  Tim.,  4.  22. 


CHAPTER  VII 

BIBLICAL  INTERPRETATION  IN  THE  MIDDLE  AGES 

From  the  death  of  Augustin  to  the  birth  of  Wyclif 
was  in  round  numbers  nine  hundred  years.  During  this 
vast  period  one  type  of  exegesis  is  found  throughout  the 
Church.  As  that  type  began  to  give  place  to  another 
in  Wyclif  and  the  German  mystics  of  the  fourteenth  and 
fifteenth  centuries,  the  survey  of  the  present  chapter  will 
not  include  them,  though  they  doubtless  fall  in  the  Middle 
Ages. 

When  the  greatest  of  the  Western  Fathers  passed  away 
from  earth  (430),  the  Roman  Empire  had  already  been 
divided  for  a  generation,  with  Constantinople  the  centre 
of  the  eastern  part,  and  the  long  period  of  Gothic  and 
Vandal  invasion  and  erasion  had  begun. ^  Twenty-five 
years  later  (455)  Rome  was  sacked,  and  in  the  next  cen- 
tury the  barbarian  flood  swept  repeatedly  over  Spain, 
Italy,  and  North  Africa.  War  and  desolation  character- 
ized the  Merovingian  period  (481-751)  in  western  Europe, 
desolation  and  war  characterized  also  the  later  Carlo- 
vingian  period  (752-994)  in  ever  increasing  measure. 
The  Lombards  in  North  Italy,  the  Angles  and  Saxons  in 
Britain,  filled  the  sixth  and  seventh  centuries  with  blood- 

'  Gaul  was  desolated  by  the  Goths  in  407,  and  in  the  next  year  Rome 
was  besieged. 

146 


BIBLICAL  INTERPRETATION  IN  THE  MIDDLE  AGES     147 

shed  and  confusion.  At  the  beginning  of  the  eighth 
century  the  sword  of  Mohammed  crossed  the  Strait  of 
Gibrahar,  and  conquered  Spain.  Through  this  century 
and  the  ninth,  the  ruthless  hordes  of  Northmen  devastated 
the  shores  of  Germany,  the  Netherlands,  and  France. 
Charlemagne  on  the  continent  and  Alfred  in  England 
lighted  up  a  brief  period,  and  brought  in  by  their  wisdom 
and  personal  power  a  measure  of  order  and  security ;  but 
the  decline  of  the  house  of  Charlemagne  was  speedy  and 
disastrous,  while  the  century  after  Alfred  saw  England 
divided  under  his  weaker  successors,  and  at  its  close  the 
land  was  harried  and  subjugated  by  the  Danes.  Then 
came  the  eleventh  century  with  its  Norman  invasion,  the 
twelfth  and  thirteenth  with  their  crusades  to  the  Holy 
Land,  carrying  off  to  eastern  graves  millions  of  the  young 
men  of  Europe. 

Thus  the  nine  centuries  with  which  we  are  now  con- 
cerned were,  when  outwardly  regarded,  a  period  of  war 
and  tumult,  of  physical  violence  and  conquest,  of  political 
narrowness  and  discord,  a  period  unfavorable  to  any  edu- 
cation save  in  the  arts  of  ruling  or  killing  one's  fellow-men. 
Here  and  there  in  the  general  darkness,  usually  at  wide 
intervals  from  each  other,  little  candles  of  knowledge 
were  kept  burning.  We  know  of  a  school  that  was  main- 
tained in  the  fifth  and  sixth  centuries  in  a  monastery  on 
the  little  island  of  Lerins,^  near  Cannes,  and  in  far-away 
Ireland  there  were  monasteries  in  the  sixth  century 
where  Greek  and  Latin  classics  were  read,*  whence  men 

*  See  J.  B.  Mullinger,  The  Schools  of  Charles  the  Great,  p.  30. 
^  John  Owen,  Evenings  with  the  Skeptics,  2.  243. 


148  THE   INTERPRETATION    OF   THE    BIBLE 

like  Columban  went  forth  to  England  and  the  conti- 
nent. 

In  the  seventh  and  eighth  centuries  the  English  monas- 
teries of  Wearmouth  and  Jarrow  maintained  an  intel- 
lectual life  of  no  mean  order,  as  we  see  in  the  Venerable 
Bede,  whom  Green  calls  "the  first  great  English  scholar," 
and  in  the  latter  part  of  the  eighth  century  the  monastery 
of  Fulda  in  Germany  became  an  important  centre  of  edu- 
cation. The  annals  of  the  monastery  of  Clugny,  founded 
in  the  tenth  century,  are  adorned  with  the  name  of  Hilde- 
brand,  the  greatest  pope  of  the  Middle  Ages  (1073-1085), 
and  with  that  of  Bernard,  the  sweetest  singer  of  the  period.* 

In  the  twelfth  and  thirteenth  centuries,  among  the 
monastic  institutions  where  great  leaders  were  trained, 
none  were  more  famous  than  St.  Victor  near  Paris  and 
Clairvaux  in  southern  France. 

To  the  monastic  institution,  which  was  the  most  widely 
spread  ^  and  most  persistent  educational  force  in  the 
period  with  which  we  are  concerned,  the  State  is  to  be 
added,  especially  as  represented  by  Charlemagne,  who  as 
an  educator  still  more  than  as  a  statesman  deserved  to  be 
called,  as  he  was  by  one  of  his  contemporaries,  "the 
lofty  beacon  of  Europe."    He  sought  education  for  him- 

'  Among  the  best  known  of  Bernard's  hymns  is  that  which  begins 
"Hora  novissima,  tempora  pessima  sunt  vigilemus,"  and  the  "Laus 
patriae  coelestis,"  from  which  we  have  — 

"  Jerusalem  the  golden, 
With  milk  and  honey  blest." 

'  There  were  some  fifty  monasteries  in  England  in  1066  according  to 
Cutts,  Parish  Priests  a^td  their  People  in  the  Middle  Ages  in  England, 
P-  37- 


BIBLICAL  INTERPRETATION  IN  THE  MIDDLE  AGES     149 

self,  and  even  in  advanced  years  acquired  the  art  of 
writing/  It  was  also  one  of  his  deepest  desires  to  have 
his  clergy  and  nobility  educated.  To  this  end  he  sum- 
moned Alcuin  from  England  in  782  to  be  the  head  of  his 
palace  school,  and  his  grandson,  Charles  the  Bald,  gave 
the  same  position  in  his  household  to  Erigena,  an  Irish 
monk  and  the  most  eminent  thinker  of  his  century.  King 
Alfred  also  knew  the  value  of  education,  and  by  his  trans- 
lations laid  the  foundation  of  English  prose  literature. 

Approaching  now  somewhat  nearer  to  our  subject,  let 
us  take  a  brief  survey  of  the  intellectual  and  moral  con- 
dition of  those  who  stood  as  teachers  and  exemplars  of 
the  Christian  religion  in  the  period  which  we  are  con- 
sidering. 

In  the  Rule  of  St.  _Benedict,  which  was  most  widely 
adopted  in  the  mediaeval  monasteries,  there  was  no  place 
for  independent  study.  The  Bible  was  to  be  read,  and 
with  it,  as  a  final  explanation,  the  exposition  of  the  Fathers. 

Aversion  to  classic  literature  was  early  and  general. 
Alcuin  rejected  Vergil  as  made  up  of  "lying  fables."^ 
Knowledge  of  Greek  nearly  perished  in  the  West  from  the 
sixth  century,  and  the  Latin  style,  formed  according  to 
late  models  and  carelessly  cultivated,  was  prevailingly 
bad.  Gregory  of  Tours,  who  died  at  the  close  of  the  sixth 
century,  bewailed  the  universal  decay  of  letters  in  Gaul, 
and  illustrated  it  in  his  own  writings,  e.g.,  by  confounding 
the  accusative  case  with  the  ablative  absolute.     In  the 

'  Gibbon,  5.  47;   Emerton,  MedicEval  Europe,  p.  436. 

^  For  the  text  of  the  Rule,  see  Henderson,  Documents,  p.  266. 

^  Mullinger,  The  Schools  of  Charles  the  Great,  p.  no. 


150  THE   INTERPRETATION   OF   THE   BIBLE 

early  part  of  the  eighth  century  Charles  ]\Iartel  gave 
Church  offices  to  those  of  his  soldiers  who  had  distin- 
guished themselves  in  war/  a  fact  that  helps  us  to  under- 
stand why  it  was  thought  necessary  by  the  Council  of 
Tours  in  813  to  recommend  that  bishops  —  nothing  is 
said  about  the  lower  clergy  —  should  read  the  Gospels 
and  the  Epistles  of  Paul.^  At  about  the  same  time  bishop 
Freculf  of  Germany  wrote  to  Rabanus  Maurus  of  Fulda 
that  he  had  not  found  in  his  bishopric  copies  of  the  Old 
Testament  or  even  of  the  New,  still  less  commentaries  on 
them.^  It  was  ordered  by  bishop  Atto  in  the  tenth  cen- 
tury that  all  presbyters,  deacons,  and  subdeacons  in  his 
bishopric  should  commit  the  creed  to  memory  on  pain  of 
suffering  a  forty  days'  abstinence  from  wine,^  and  we  read 
in  the  Itinerary  of  Ratherius  that  in  the  same  century  very 
many  of  the  clergy  of  Verona  did  not  know  the  Apostles' 
Creed. ^  According  to  Pope  Victor  III,  who  succeeded 
Hildebrand,  the  clergy,  almost  without  exception,  bought 
and  sold  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit.^  It  is  not  probable 
that  such  men  were  very  diligent  in  the  study  of  Scripture, 
or  earnest  in  the  acquisition  of  any  useful  knowledge.^ 
At  the  Council  of  Cologne  in  1250  it  was  decreed  that 

'  Gieseler,  Kirchengeschichte,  1.  2.  491.  Hincmar  of  Rheims  says 
Christianity  was  nearly  destroyed  in  Germany,  Belgium,  and  Gaul  in  the 
time  of  Charles. 

'  Fisher,  The  Mediceval  Empire,  2.  485. 

'  For  the  text  see  Gieseler,  op.  cit.,  2.  i.  87. 

*  D'Achery,  Spicilegiiim,  p.  402. 

'  For  the  text  see  Gieseler,  op.  cit.,  2.1.  264. 

'  Montalembert,  Monks  of  the  West,  5.  245. 

'  Fisher,  Tlie  Mediceval  Empire,  2.  86. 


BIBLICAL  INTERPRETATION  IN  THE  MIDDLE  AGES    151 

the  clergy  who  could  not  read  and  also  sing  the  ritual 
must  employ  suitable  persons  to  perform  these  services 
for  them/  The  testimony  of  Roger  Bacon  written  in  the 
second  half  of  this  century  is  of  great  interest.  He  declares 
that  the  entire  clergy  were  given  to  pride,  luxury,  and 
avarice.  Where  they  congregated,  as  at  Paris  and  Oxford, 
their  vices  and  riotings  were  such  that  the  laity  were  scan- 
dalized. Theological  students  were  banished  from  Paris 
and  France  because  of  gross  vices.  And  another  statement 
of  Bacon's  which  throws  a  strong  light  on  the  condition 
of  the  clergy  in  the  thirteenth  century  is  that  thousands  of 
mere  boys  from  ten  to  twenty  years  of  age  were  allowed 
to  study  theology,  though  they  had  received  no  adequate 
preliminary  training.^  Again,  Bacon  tells  us  that  the 
Bible  was  degraded,  being  deliberately  put  below  the 
Sentences.  "One  who  reads  the  Sentences  disputes  and 
is  held  as  a  master;  one  who  reads  the  text  {i.e.  the  Bible) 
is  not  able  to  dispute — which  is  absurd."^  But  in  con- 
nection with  this  terribly  dark  picture  of  the  ignorance 
and  baseness  of  the  clergy  in  general,  it  is  comforting  to 
read  in  the  same  work  of  Bacon  that  he  knew  a  humble 
student  who  had  spent  forty  years  in  correcting  the  text 
of  Scripture,  and  still  more  comforting  to  think  of  the 
heroic  labors  and  great  achievements  of  Bacon  himself, 
though  it  is  pathetic  that  he  died  wholly  unappreciated. 

The  general  state  of  the  clergy  seems  to  have  grown  even 
worse  in  the  century  following  Bacon's  death.     Studies 

^  On  the  ignorance  of  the  clergy  in  this  period,  the  conclusions  of  a 
Church  historian  may  be  seen  in  SchafF,  Church  History,  4. 400,  608,  616. 
^  Bacon,  Opera  qitaedam  hactenus  inedita,  edited  by  Brewer,  i.  398. 
^  See  Monumenta  Germatiiae  Hislorica,  Scriptores,  28.  574. 


i^ 


152  THE   INTERPRETATION   OF  THE    BIBLE 

declined  in  the  monasteries,  and  men  who  could  not  even 
read  were  placed  over  churches,  who  henceforth  spent 
their  time  in  gaming,  or  feasting,  or  in  yet  worse  ways/ 

It  is  to  be  remembered  that,  although  a  large  part  of 
the  most  distinguished  clergy  were  monks,  the  greater 
part  of  the  monks  were  not  clergy.  The  sketch  we  have 
given  of  the  educational  state  of  the  clergy  would  not  be 
altogether  applicable  to  the  generality  of  the  monks. 
Church  offices,  indeed,  might  be  filled  with  common  soldiers 
by  Charles  Martel,  and  century  after  century  they  might 
be  filled  by  the  men  who  could  pay  their  price;  but  life 
in  a  monastery  was  not  a  political  reward  or  a  prize  ob- 
tained with  money.  Furthermore,  the  monk  had  more 
quiet  than  the  prelate,  and  his  whole  environment  was 
naturally  more  favorable  to  study.  Yet  the  life  of  the 
monasteries,  both  intellectual  and  moral,  seems  not  to  have 
been,  save  for  short  intervals,  on  a  much  higher  level  than 
that  of  the  secular  clergy.  No  rule  was  able  to  keep  the 
lust  of  power  and  wealth  outside  the  walls  of  the  mon- 
asteries. Again  and  again  throughout  the  entire  period 
which  we  are  considering,  it  was  necessary  to  reform  the 
life  of  the  monks  and  to  rekindle  the  flame  of  learning. 
Books  were  more  abundant  in  the  monastic  libraries  than 
elsewhere,  but  that  was  largely  because  monks  were  the 
chief  manufacturers  of  books.  They  could  neglect  them 
also,  and  they  did.  Classic  knowledge  perished  within 
the  monastery  as  well  as  outside,  though  somewhat  later, 
and  its  revival  in  the  sixteenth  century  did  not  proceed 
from  the  monastery. 

'See  Gieseler,  op.  cit.,  2.  3.  184. 


BIBLICAL  INTERPRETATION  IN  THE  MIDDLE  AGES    1 53 

After  this  preliminary  survey  of  the  period  from  Augus- 
tin  to  Wyclif,  especially  of  the  education  of  priests  and 
monks,  we  come  to  the  special  subject  of  mediaeval  inter- 
pretation of  the  Bible.  To  appreciate  and  understand 
this,  we  must,  of  course,  go  to  the  sources.  For  the  earlier 
centuries  of  our  period  these  are  few,  for  the  later  centuries 
very  numerous. 

Monte  Cassino,  where  the  Rule  of  Benedict  was  drawn 
up  in  the  first  half  of  the  sixth  century,  has  been  not  in- 
appropriately styled  "the  Sinai  of  the  Middle  Ages." 
By  nothing  is  the  justice  of  the  title  better  illustrated  than 
by  its  utterance  regarding  interpretation.  It  looks  upon 
the  exposition  of  the  Fathers  as  all-sufhcient.  How  widely 
and  deeply  that  conviction  determined  the  Bible  study 
of  the  Middle  Ages,  we  shall  have  frequent  opportunity 
to  observe.  The  exegesis  practised  by  the  author  of  this 
influential  ordinance  is  suggested  by  the  fact  that  the 
psalmist's  joyful  cry,  "Seven  times  in  the  day  do  I  praise 
thee,"  was  made  the  mathematical  basis  of  the  order  of 
daily  service,  and  further  by  this  fact  that  the  Pauline 
utterance,  "Ye  have  received  the  Spirit  of  adoption  whereby 
we  cry  Ahha  Father,"  was  regarded  as  proving  that  the 
abbot  of  the  monastery  is  Christ's  representative,  and  is 
called  by  his  name.* 

Of  the  exegesis  of  the  Church  in  the  hundred  years 
following  the  death  of  Benedict,  we  must  judge  from  the 
writings  of  three  men,  all  Romans  by  birth,  all  worthily 
filling  high  offices.     These  are  Gregory,  bishop  of  Tours 

1  See  Benedict's  Rule,  2  and  16.  Article  4  has  72  quotations  from 
Scripture. 


154  THE   INTERPRETATION   OF  THE   BIBLE 

(t  596),  Isidore,  bishop  of  Seville  (f  636),  and  Gregory 
the  Pope  (f  604).  Of  the  attitude  of  Gregory  of  Tours 
toward  the  Bible  and  his  ability  to  interpret  it,  we  have 
at  least  a  suggestion  in  the  fact  that  he  wTote  eight 
books  on  post-bibHcal  miracles,  a  work  on  the  miracles 
of  the  apostle  Andrew,  and  a  third  on  the  passion  of  the 
"  Seven  Holy  Sleepers."  By  virtue  of  these  works  we  may 
well  call  him  the  founder  of  that  most  popular  and  in- 
fluential branch  of  mediaeval  hterature,  the  miracles  of 
saints.^  The  quahty  of  his  bibhcal  work  may  be  briefly 
indicated  from  his  treatise  on  the  titles  of  the  Psalms  —  a 
field  which  Augustin  found  very  fruitful.  Thus  the  title 
of  Ps.  9  announces  the  advent  of  the  Son  of  God,  that 
of  Ps.  65  announces  his  resurrection,  and  all  those 
Psalms  whose  titles  contain  (in  the  Vulgate)  the  words 
infinem  show  the  perfection  of  good  works.^ 

Gregory  the  Great,  like  Gregory  of  Tours,  was  extremely 
credulous,  and  was  more  interested  in  the  reports  of 
miracles  than  in  the  close  study  of  Scripture.^  Bede  tells 
us  that  he  wrote  a  mystical  interpretation  of  Job  "with  a 
wonderful  system  of  exegesis"  (expos! tionis  miranda  ra- 
tione),  and  this  statement  we  can  readily  believe  after 
reading  his  Pastoral  Rule,  which  seeks  to  buttress  sensi- 

'  Voragine's  Aiirea  Legenda  of  tlie  thirteenth  century  and  Bolland's 
Acta  sanctorum  of  the  seventeenth,  which  contains  some  twenty-five  thou- 
sand names,  are  the  great  repositories  of  this  hterature. 

*  See  Monumenla  Cermajijae  Historica :  Scriptorum  Rerum  Merovin- 
gicarum,  i.  874. 

^  Gregory  blamed  St.  Dizier  of  Viennc  for  teaching  grammar.  Guizot, 
History  of  Civilization,  2.  102.  See  also  Mason,  The  Mission  of  St. 
Augustine,  p.  63. 


BIBLICAL  INTERPRETATION  IN  THE  MIDDLE  AGES     155 

ble  instructions  with  the  most  fanciful  interpretation  of 
Scripture.^ 

Isidore  of  Seville  taught  that  the  Bible  is  to  be  under- 
stood in  three  ways  —  according  to  the  letter  {secundum 
liter  am),  figuratively  {secundum  figuratam  intelligentiam), 
as  Ezekiel  and  the  Song  of  Solomon,  and  mystically  {mys- 
tica  ratione),  as  the  ark,  the  tabernacle,  and  the  temple.^ 

It  was  a  century  lacking  a  year  from  the  death  of  Isidore  to 
that  of  the  Venerable  Bede  (about  735),  whom  a  German 
writer  calls  the  most  learned  man  of  the  Occident  of  his 
time.  It  is  quite  certain  that  we  have  in  his  writings  the 
best  that  was  accomplished  in  his  century  in  the  interpre- 
tation of  Scripture.  Bede  did  not  lay  claim  to  any  origi- 
nality in  his  method  of  interpretation.  If  his  notes  were  not 
culled  from  the  Fathers,  it  was  at  least  his  aim  to  write 
nothing  at  variance  with  them.^  Plummer  gives  a  list 
of  more  than  a  hundred  writers  whom  Bede  quoted.'* 
Some  of  his  commentaries  consist  almost  exclusively  of 
excerpts  from  the  Fathers. 

Bede  found  a  mystical  sense  in  all  Scripture,  even  in 
its  most  obviously  historical  portions,  but  his  unfolding 
of  this  mystical  sense  was  characterized  by  great  sobriety.^ 

*  See,  e.g.,  Regula  Pastoralis,  i.  5.  11;    2.  11;   3.  39. 
^  D'Achery,  Spicilegium,  i.  225. 

^  See  Plummer,  Veti.  Baedae  Opera  Historica,  p.  x. 

*  Op.  cit.,  p.  1. 

*  At  the  same  time,  in  Bede's  case  as  in  that  of  Philo,  it  is  misleading  to 
speak  of  "fixed  laws"  of  interpretation  when  a  mystical  sense  is  assumed. 
Mystical  interpretation  has  always  been  arbitrary.  When  we  come  to 
the  number  three,  we  may,  according  to  Bede,  see  a  reference  to  the 
Trinity ;  to  heart,  soul,  and  strength ;  to  faith,   hope,   and  charity ;  to 


156  THE    INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  BIBLE 

This  was  perhaps  his  chief  merit.  He  made  no  advance 
upon  the  Fathers,  but  he  used  them  and  their  method 
with  good  sense.  The  tone  of  Bede's  exegesis,  Hke  that 
of  all  ancient  interpretation,  is  magisterial.  The  meaning 
is  declared,  not  deduced.  Thus,  for  example,  as  to  the 
personality  of  Jude,  it  is  simply  affirmed  that  he  was 
the  apostle  whom  Matthew  and  Mark  call  Thaddceus} 
The  twelve  tribes  of  the  Dispersion  in  Jas.  i :  i  are  said 
to  be  those  Jews  who  were  scattered  at  the  death  of 
Stephen.^  The  comment  on  the  injunction,  "Be  not 
many  teachers,"  is  that  James  thereby  removes  from  the 
office  of  the  word  those  who  had  gone  from  Judea  to 
Antioch,  and  who  were  teaching  the  Gentiles  that  unless 
they  were  circumcised,  they  could  not  be  saved.  These 
three  instances  illustrate  not  only  the  magisterial  tone  of 
Bede's  exegesis,  but  also  its  wery  inadequate  historical 
knowledge. 

Bede,  like  the  early  Fathers,  was  apt  to  introduce  the 
theological  teaching  of  the  Church  at  points  where  the 
text  can  be  quite  satisfactorily  explained  without  it.  Thus 
when  commenting  on  the  words  "Our  only  Master  and 
Lord  Jesus  Christ"  (Jude  4),  he  says:  "Our  only  Master 
is  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  with  the  Father  and  the  Holy 
Spirit,  as  our  only  Master  is  the  Father  with  the  Son  and 
the  Holy  Spirit,  as  also  our  only  Master  is  the  Holy  Spirit 

almsgiving,  prayer,  and  fasting ;  to  resurrection  on  the  third  day ;  to  the 
married,  the  continent,  and  the  virgins,  or  to  the  three  continents.  See 
Plummer,  as  above,  p.  lix. 

'  See  In  II  Epistolam  S.  Petri,  Migne's  Patrologia  Latina,  vol.  93. 

^  Super  divi  Jacobi  Epistolam,  Migne,  vol.  93. 


BIBLICAL  INTERPRETATION  IN  THE  MIDDLE  AGES     157 

with  the  Father  and  the  Son.  Our  only  Master  is  the 
entire  Trinity,  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit."  And  he 
goes  on  at  considerable  length  setting  forth  this  dogma 
of  theology. 

It  is  noteworthy  that  Bede  emphatically  rejected  the 
ancient  notion  of  inspiration.  Speaking  on  2  Pet.  1:21 
he  remarks  that  it  is  ridiculous  to  think  that  the  prophets 
in  declaring  what  the  Spirit  gave  them  were  hke  pipes 
through  which,  by  breathing,  one  makes  sounds. 

In  the  century  and  a  half  between  the  death  of  Bede 
and  that  of  the  greatest  of  the  Irish  monks,  John  Scotus 
Erigena  (about  880),  a  period  which  included  the  reign 
of  Charlemagne  and  nearly  all  of  Alfred's,  there  hved  a 
considerable  number  of  men  whose  biblical  work  has  come 
down  to  the  present  day.  Alcuin,  the  first  of  these  writers 
to  be  considered,  went  forth  from  the  school  of  York  over 
which  a  pupil  of  Bede  had  presided.  His  fundamental 
canon  of  Scripture  interpretation  was  not  different  from 
Bede's.  It  was  to  teach  what  the  Fathers  had  taught.* 
He  spoke  of  Augustin  as  heatissimus,  other  Fathers  as 
heati?  Like  Bede  he  had  some  knowledge  of  Greek, 
and  if  we  may  judge  from  a  letter  to  the  Irish  monks,  he 
did  not  despise  the  knowledge  of  secular  literature.^  He 
appears  to  have  regarded  the  mystical  sense  of  Scripture 
as  the  most  important,  and  dwelt  with  peculiar  fondness 

*  MuUinger,  Schools  of  Charles  the  Great,  p.  89. 

^  D'Achery,  Spicilegium,  i.  63. 

^  Ibid.,  I.  437.  This  letter  is  assigned  to  the  period  792-804,  and  we 
may  suppose  that  Alcuin's  attitude  toward  classical  literature  was  less 
severe  than  it  had  been  at  an  earlier  day. 


158  THE   INTERPRETATION    OF   THE   BIBLE 

on  the  significance  of  numbers.  When  he  spoke  on  this 
subject,  as  in  a  letter  to  Arno,  bishop  of  Sahsbury,  it  was 
manifestly  out  of  a  full  heart. ^  In  a  letter  to  a  certain 
Daphnus,  he  wrote  as  follows  regarding  the  sixty  queens 
and  eighty  concubines  of  Solomon  (Song  of  Sol.  6:8): 
"  They  are  the  rulers  and  guides  of  Holy  Church.  Those 
who  work  for  love  of  Christ  are  sixty,  those  who  follow 
earthly  ambition  are  designated  by  the  imperfect  number 
eighty,  and  are  called  concubines."  ^  In  a  letter  to  Galli- 
cellulus  he  discussed  the  ground  of  numbers  as  used  in 
the  Bible.  A  passage  from  this  letter  will  give  a  vivid  idea 
of  the  way  in  which  Alcuin  handled  Scripture.  There 
were  ten  precepts  of  the  law,  he  says  in  substance ;  in  like 
manner  Christ  gave  ten  pounds  to  the  preachers  of  each 
people.  To  the  ten  plagues  of  Egypt  correspond  the  ten 
persecutions  with  which  the  Christian  Church  is  crowned. 
On  the  tenth  day  of  the  month  the  paschal  lamb  was  to 
be  chosen ;  at  the  tenth  hour  Christ  breathed  out  his  Hfe  on 
the  cross.  Then  as  to  the  number  nine.  The  archangel 
who  fell  from  heaven  was  covered  (adorned)  with  nine 
stones ;  and  to  this  corresponds  the  fact  that  nine  orders 
of  angels  remained  in  heaven.  Passing  eight  and  seven, 
we  read  that  on  the  sixth  day  man  was  created  out  of 
the  immaculate  earth,  and  in  the  sixth  age  the  Son  of 
God  was  made  man  from  the  immaculate  virgin.  He  sees 
a  divine  correspondence  between  the  four  rivers  which 
flowed  from  the  one  fount  of  Paradise  to  water  the  earth 
and  the  four  gospels  that  proceeded  from  the  one  fount, 
i.e.,  Christ,  to  water  dry  souls  that  they  may  bloom  with 

>  D'Acherv,   i.  ?88.  ^  Ibid.,  i.  200. 


BIBLICAL  INTERPRETATION  IN  THE  MIDDLE  AGES     159 

the  flowers  of  virtue.  Unto  the  two  cherubim  in  the 
temple  correspond  the  two  parts  of  knowledge  —  one  of 
which  is  to  leave  the  devil,  the  other  to  love  God. 

Hardly  less  distinguished  in  his  own  time  than  Alcuin 
was  his  pupil,  Rabanus,  abbot  of  Fulda  and  later  arch- 
bishop of  Mainz.  He  revived  the  theory  of  a  fourfold 
sense  of  Scripture  held  by  Cassian  in  the  fifth  century. 
The  four  senses,  says  Rabanus,  are  the  four  daughters  of 
wisdom.  The  historical  sense  is  milk  for  babes,  the  alle- 
gorical sense  is  for  those  who  are  advancing  in  knowledge, 
the  tropological  is  strong  meat,  and  the  anagogical  is  wine 
for  those  who  despise  earthly  pleasures  and  whose  affec- 
tions are  fixed  on  heaven.^  If  the  historical  sense  of 
Scripture  is  "milk  for  babes,"  there  is  ground  for  the 
suspicion  that  Rabanus,  like  many  other  allegorical  inter- 
preters, greatly  neglected  that  large  and  needy  division 
of  mankind.  Rabanus  does  not  make  it  clear  how  the 
tropological  and  the  anagogical  sense  differ  from  the 
simple  allegorical  meaning.  Here  are  specimens  of  what 
he  meant  by  anagogical  interpretation.  The  fringe  of 
Christ's  garment  denotes  the  incarnation.  The  basket 
in  which  Moses  was  placed  denotes  the  Virgin  Mary. 
The  "hook"  in  Job  41,  with  which  it  is  suggested  that 
Job  might  draw  out  leviathan,  denotes  Christ's  humanity. 
The  sea  of  glass  before  the  throne  of  God  signifies  baptism, 
and  the  frogs  mentioned  by  the  psalmist  are  heretics.^ 

Rabanus  found  the  sacraments  of  the  Church  and 
Christian  teaching  in  the  most  unlikely  sections  of  the 
Hebrew  Scriptures.     Thus  the   commentary  on   Esther, 

'See  MuUinger,  op.  cit.,  p.  146.  ^  Ibid.,  pp.  146-147. 


l6o  THE    INTERPRETATION    OF   THE    BIBLE 

which  he  sent  to  the  Empress  Judith  (834),  shows  that 
book  to  be  full  of  Christian  truth.  The  spiritual  sense  of 
the  books  of  Chronicles  pertains  to  the  grace  of  Christ, 
as  he  showed  in  an  exposition  dedicated  to  Ludwig  (834- 
838),  and  in  a  letter  to  the  same  king  Rabanus  speaks  of 
the  acts  of  the  biblical  saints  as  having  a  mystical  signifi- 
cance, also  the  places  in  which  they  lived,  some  of  which 
he  translated  from  Hebrew  into  Latin  in  order  to  bring 
out  more  clearly  this  mystical  sense. ^  In  a  commentary 
on  the  Pentateuch  which  Rabanus  prepared  at  the  request 
of  bishop  Freculf,  he  says  that  nearly  all  the  sacraments 
of  the  Church  are  figuratively  expressed  in  Exodus,  as, 
for  example,  the  sanctification  of  the  Spirit  and  the  mystery 
of  sacred  prayers  in  what  is  said  of  holy  ointment  and 
incense.  In  the  book  of  Joshua  he  saw  the  entire  career 
of  Jesus  prefigured.^  Thus  we  may  say  that  if  Alcuin  took 
Augustin  as  his  guide  in  the  interpretation  of  Scripture, 
Rabanus  was  somewhat  more  influenced  by  Jerome.  It  is 
interesting  to  notice  that  in  the  dedication  of  his  com- 
mentaries he  is  careful  to  say  that  he  has  plainly  marked 
the  additions  which  he,  "out  of  his  poverty,"  has  made  to 
the  exposition  of  the  Fathers.^ 

From  the  monastery  at  Fulda  wc  turn  for  a  moment  to 
that  of  Corbey  in  North  France,  where  Radbcrtus  was 
abbot  in  the  first  half  of  the  ninth  century  and  Ratramnus 


'  D'Achery,  Spicilegium,  i.  473.  ^  Ibid.,  i.  401. 

'  Another  resident  at  Fulda,  William  of  Bamberg,  says  in  his  Introduc- 
tion to  Canticles,  "  I  have  added  nothing  of  my  own,  but  have  com- 
pressed all  I  could  find  in  the  expositions  of  the  Fathers."  See  Maitland, 
Tlie  Dark  Ages,  p.  218. 


BIBLICAL  INTERPRETATION  IN  THE  MIDDLE  AGES     l6l 

was  a  monk.  They  were  the  first  mediaeval  writers  to 
make  the  Lord's  Supper  a  subject  of  controversy,  and  the 
former  was  the  first  conspicuous  writer  on  the  birth  of  the 
Virgin  Mary.  Radbertus  had  some  knowledge  of  Hebrew, 
and  refers  in  his  writings  to  the  various  translations  of  the 
Old  Testament  into  Greek.  Here  is  a  single  specimen 
of  his  exegesis.  The  birth  of  Jesus  was  not  according  to 
the  law  of  nature,  for  if  it  had  been,  then,  according  to 
Gen.  3 :  i6,  it  would  have  partaken  of  the  curse.  But  when 
the  Holy  Spirit  came  upon  Mary,  she  was  hoHer  than  the 
stars  of  heaven,  and  her  bringing  forth  of  Jesus  cannot  have 
been  with  sorrow,  affliction,  and  suffering,  which  things 
were  incidental  to  the  curse. ^  It  is  hardly  necessary  now 
to  point  out  that,  while  Genesis  records  a  curse  upon  the 
serpent  and  upon  the  earth,  it  does  not  curse  the  woman, 
and  also  that  hoHness  may  coexist  with  suffering  and 
sorrow. 

Ratramnus  argued  that  Jesus  was  miraculously  born 
of  a  virgin  from  the  words  of  Jer.  31:22:  "Jehovah 
hath  created  a  new  thing  in  the  earth;  a  woman  shall 
encompass  a  man,"  ^  and  from  the  vision  of  Ezekiel  where 
he  speaks  of  a  "  door  of  the  sanctuary  "  looking  toward  the 
east  (43:1-2;   44:1)- 

Certain  letters  of  the  early  part  of  the  ninth  century 
afford  us  interesting  glimpses  of  the  way  in  which  the  Bible 
was   then   interpreted.^     Thus  the   Congregation  of  the 

*  D'Achery,  Spicilegium,  i.  44. 

^  I  have  noticed  somewhere  in  the  Diary  of  Samuel  Pepys  that  he 
heard  a  London  clergyman  use  this  passage  in  the  same  manner.  This 
was  some  eight  hundred  years  after  the  time  of  Ratramnus. 

^  See  Epistolae  Karolini  Aevi,  3.  65,  93,   114,  153. 

M 


1 62  THE    INTERPRETATION   OF   THE   BIBLE 

Mount  of  Olives  in  a  letter  to  Pope  Leo  III  in  809  adduce 
John  21:17  as  Scripture  proof  that  to  Peter  and  his  suc- 
cessors the  Lord  had  given  the  entire  world. ^  The  same 
Leo  in  a  letter  to  Charles  I  answers  with  quotations  from 
Jerome  three  questions  of  interpretation  which  the  em- 
peror had  submitted  to  him.  Bishop  Einhard,  a  pupil  of 
Alcuin,  in  admonishing  Lothair  I,  appealed  to  Deut.  21:21 
in  proof  that  a  disobedient  son  should  be  stoned.  This  he 
regarded  as  a  divine  sentence  of  perpetual  validity.  Ago- 
bard,  the  archbishop  of  Lyons,  in  writing  to  his  clergy  and 
monks  regarding  Church  rule,  cited  a  large  number  of 
Scripture  passages,  about  half  of  which  are  from  the  Song 
of  Solomon  and  the  Apocalypse.  Such  a  fact  throws  a 
strong  light  on  the  lack  of  literary  and  historical  apprecia- 
tion of  the  Scriptures  prevalent  in  that  age. 

We  complete  our  survey  of  exegesis  in  the  Carlovingian 
age  with  some  remarks  on  the  work  of  Erigena  {cir.  833- 
880).  The  fact  that  his  writings  were  anathematized  by 
Honorius  III  and  again  by  Gregory  III,  and  the  further 
fact  that  he  was  murdered  by  his  own  pupils  in  Oxford, 
suggest  that  there  may  have  been  an  element  of  originality 
in  him,  and  perhaps  of  heterodoxy ;  but  this  originality  did 
not  manifest  itself  in  his  method  of  interpretation.  "It  is 
not  for  us,"  he  says  in  his  great  work,  De  divisione  naturae,^ 
"to  pass  judgment  on  the  meaning  of  the  holy  fathers,  but 
to  receive  them  with  pious  and  reverent  feeling."  This 
was  the  attitude  characteristic  of  his  predecessors  for  four 

'  Comp.  Hildebrand's  interpretation  of  Matt.  16:19  i"  Article  22 
of  the  Diclattis  Papae. 

*  See  Migne,  Patrologia  Latina,  vol.  122. 


BIBLICAL  INTERPRETATION  IN  THE  MIDDLE  AGES     163 

hundred  years.  Erigena's  originality  was  in  the  depart- 
ment of  philosophy,  not  in  that  of  biblical  interpretation. 
In  this  he  was  an  extreme  allegorist,  not  unUke  Origen  in 
the  combination  of  speculative  genius  with  disregard  for  the 
historical  value  of  the  Scriptures.  Let  us  transport  our- 
selves into  Erigena's  world  of  thought  for  a  few  moments 
by  following  his  comments  on  some  passages  of  John. 

The  Baptist  said  to  the  priests  and  Levites  that  he  was 
not  worthy  to  unloose  the  latchet  of  the  Messiah's  shoe 
(John  I  :  27).  This  shoe,  says  Erigena,  signifies  the 
flesh  of  the  Word,  which  he  had  assumed  from  the  Vir- 
gin. For  as  a  shoe  is  made  out  of  the  skin  of  a  dead  animal, 
so  the  flesh  of  Christ  was  made  mortal  for  our  sakes.^  The 
latchet  of  the  shoe  means  "the  investigable  perplexities  of 
the  mysteries  of  the  incarnation ! " 

Again,  commenting  on  the  two  Bethanys  implied  in 
John  1 :  28,  Erigena  says  that  the  Bethany  beyond  Jordan 
prefigures  in  a  mystical  manner  human  nature  before  it 
sinned,  which  was  then  a  "house  of  obedience" — the 
meaning  he  gave  to  the  word  "Bethany."  The  Bethany 
near  Jerusalem  denotes  the  same  nature  freed  through  the 
incarnation  of  the  Word  and  the  streams  of  divine  grace, 
which  are  at  first  distributed  as  it  were  into  Judea  through 
the  sacrament  of  baptism.  It  was  fit,  therefore,  that  John 
should  baptize  beyond  Jordan  because  he  did  not  yet  have 
that  true  baptism  which  delivers  the  entire  human  nature 
not  only  from  original  sin,  but  also  from  sins  of  individual 
origin. 

We  are  told  at  the   beginning  of   the   fourth  chapter 

*  Migne,  Patrologia  Latina,  vol.  122. 


164  THE    INTERPRETATION   OF  THE   BIBLE 

of  John  that  when  Jesus  left  Judea  it  was  necessary  that 
he  should  pass  through  Samaria.  This  is  explained  as 
follows:  Samaria  is  the  natural  law,  and  is  estabHshed 
between  Judea,  which  signified  the  law  of  the  letter,  and 
Galilee,  which  is  a  figure  of  the  eternal  divine  laws.  Since 
therefore  Christ  took  the  foundations  of  his  Church  from 
the  law  of  the  letter,  it  was  necessary  that  he  should  pass 
through  the  nations  which  were  placed  under  the  law  of 
nature.  It  was  thus  that  the  foremost  scholar  of  his  age 
dealt  with  simple  geographical  designations. 

Again,  Erigena  says  that  the  woman  of  Samaria  denotes 
the  Church  that  is  gathered  out  of  those  nations  which 
desire  to  drink  of  the  fountain,  i.e.,  Christ,  and  her  coming 
forth  out  of  the  city  indicates  that  human  nature  naturally 
seeks  the  fountain  of  reason.  This  statement  is  highly 
interesting,  not  for  any  light  it  throws  on  the  text,  but  only 
for  that  which  it  throws  upon  the  interpreter  himself. 
It  suggests  that  he  regarded  Christianity  as  supremely 
reasonable,  and  that  reason,  not  dogma,  is  the  highest 
authority. 

Yet  one  other  passage.  The  lad  with  five  loaves  and 
two  fishes  (John  6:9)  points  mystically  to  Moses,  who  is 
not  unfittingly  called  a  httle  boy,  because  the  law  given  by 
him  led  no  one  to  the  mature  age  of  justice.  The  five 
loaves  are  the  five  books  of  Moses,  and  arc  not  improperly 
called  barley  because  carnal  man  fed  upon  them.  The 
much  grass  where  the  five  thousand  men  sat  down  signifies 
the  letter  of  the  law,  which  was  manifested  in  symbols. 
The  disciples  are  commanded  to  make  the  men  recline, 
because  teachers  of  truth,  unless  first  they  begin  to  instruct 


BIBLICAL  INTERPRETATION  IN  THE  MIDDLE  AGES     165 

their  pupils  in  the  simplicity  of  the  letter,  are  not  able  to 
raise  them  to  the  heights  of  contemplation.  The  fragments 
of  the  barley  loaves  are  the  subtile  and  difficult  understand- 
ing of  the  holy  Scriptures  and  the  visible  sacraments. 

But  these  specimens  of  Erigena's  interpretation  must 
suffice.  He  died  almost  on  the  threshold  of  the  tenth 
century,  ten  years  before  the  death  of  King  Alfred.  This 
century  offers  nothing  significant  to  the  student  of  biblical 
interpretation.  As  far  as  Bible  study  and  Christian  life 
are  concerned,  it  was  the  darkest  of  the  Dark  Ages.^  The 
eleventh  century  was  more  fruitful.  The  Homilies  of 
Mlfric,  archbishop  of  York,  illustrate  the  exegesis  which 
was  then  current  in  England.  The  biblical  background 
in  the  Homilies  is  very  often  obscured  by  legends  and  a 
multitude  of  stories  of  strange  or  fantastic  miracles.  When 
that  background  is  allowed  to  appear,  the  exposition  fre- 
quently falls  below  the  average  of  the  Fathers  and  never 
rises  above  it.  Here  are  a  few  illustrations  of  eleventh 
century  exegesis  from  this  collection  of  sermons  which 
were  prepared  by  the  highest  authority  for  the  use  of  the 
clergy. 

The  eighth  day  after  birth,  on  which  a  Jewish  child 
was  circumcised,  betokened  the  eighth  age  of  the  world, 
in  which  we  shall  arise  from  the  dead.  The  stone  knife 
with  which  circumcision  was  accomplished  betokened 
that  stone  of  which  the  apostle  said,  "The  rock  was 
Christ."  ^    When  Jesus  said  that  many  from  the  east  and 

'  Lecky  {op.  cit.,  2.  239)  regards  the  seventh  and  eighth  centuries  as 
the  darkest  period  of  the  Middle  Ages.  Oman,  The  Dark  Ages,  gives 
that  preeminence  to  the  ninth  century. 

^Homilies  of  Mlfric,  edited  by  Benjamin  Thorpe,  1844,  i.  99. 


l66  THE   INTERPRETATION   OF   THE    BIBLE 

the  west  should  sit  down  with  Abraham  in  the  Kingdom 
of  God,  he  signified  by  the  east  part  those  who  should  turn 
to  God  in  their  youth,  and  by  the  west  part  those  who 
should  turn  when  old/  The  homily  on  the  Lord's  Prayer 
explains  the  "daily  bread"  as  meaning  three  things, — sus- 
tenance of  the  body,  sustenance  of  the  soul,  and  the  par- 
taking of  the  "holy  housel."  '  In  the  comment  on  the 
word  of  Jesus,  that  he  would  meet  his  disciples  in  Galilee, 
after  he  should  have  arisen  from  the  dead,  we  are  informed 
that  Galilee  signifies  "passing  over,"  so  that  the  promise 
meant  that  he  would  meet  them  when  he  should  have 
passed  over  from  death  to  life.  The  incident  of  Jesus 
riding  into  Jerusalem  on  an  ass  is  treated  very  much 
as  it  was  by  the  Alexandrian  allegorists.  The  two  dis- 
ciples who  were  sent  for  the  ass  are  the  teachers  whom 
God  sends  to  instruct  mankind.  They  are  two  because 
a  teacher  should  have  learning  and  good  works.  The  ass 
and  its  foal  betoken  the  Jews  and  the  Gentiles.  The 
fact  that  they  were  tied  signifies  that  all  mankind  are  bound 
with  sins.  The  garments  spread  upon  the  ass  are  works 
of  righteousness,  and  the  people  who  cast  their  garments 
under  the  feet  of  the  ass  are  the  martyrs  who  for  Christ's 
sake  give  their  bodies  to  torments. 

From  the  Homilies  of  Mlfric,  which  represent  the  popu- 
lar exegesis  of  the  time,  we  pass  to  the  most  eminent  theo- 
logian of  the  century,  Anselm  (1033-1109),  archbishop  of 
Canterbury,  simply  noting  on  the  way  a  sample  of  the 
biblical  interpretation  of  his  master  Lanfranc.  In  his 
Elucidariiim  he  describes  some  of  the  many   members 

^Homilies,  i.  8r.  ^  Ibid.,  i.  265. 


LiBLICAL  INTERPRETATION  IN  THE  MIDDLE  AGES     167 

which  constitute  the  one  body  of  Christ.  Prophets  are  the 
eyes  of  this  body,  the  obedient  are  the  ears,  doctors,  that 
is,  doctors  of  theology,  are  the  mouth,  and  expositors  of 
Scripture  are  the  teeth/  Anselm,  the  most  distinguished 
pupil  of  Lanfranc,  is  described  by  one  of  his  biographers 
as  a  man  whom  Aristotle  would  have  worshipped.^  The 
significance  of  this  word  will  appear  as  we  follow  him  for 
a  little  in  his  use  of  Scripture.  For  this  purpose  we  will 
take  his  Cur  Deus  Homo.^  We  find  Anselm's  general 
view  of  Scripture  in  these  words:  "Christ  originated  the 
New  Testament  and  approved  the  Old.  Since  Christ  is 
true,  no  one  can  dissent  from  anything  contained  in  these 
books." ^  The  form  of  this  utterance  is  logical,  but  the 
content  is  scarcely  a  half-truth.  Christ  did  not  originate 
the  New  Testament  as  Anselm  used  that  word,  nor  did 
he  wholly  approve  of  the  Old. 

The  method  of  Anselm's  exegesis  Is  indicated  by  the 
following  passages  from  his  most  elaborate  work.  The 
author  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  says  that  Christ  learned 

'  See  Hook,  Lives  of  the  Archbishops  of  Canterbury,  2.  102.  Another 
bit  of  contemporary  exegesis  is  afforded  by  a  letter  of  John,  abbot  of 
Feschamps  in  Normandy,  to  the  Empress  Agnes,  whose  husband  had 
recently  died.  From  the  account  in  Genesis  that  Eve  was  created  out 
of  a  single  rib  of  Adam,  the  abbot  argued  the  propriety  of  maintaining  the 
glorious  excellence  of  single  wedlock.     See  Maitland,  The  Dark  Ages, 

P-  352- 

^See  Martin  Rule,  The  Life  and  Times  of  St.  Anselm,  i.  124. 

^  Weber,  History  of  Philosophy,  p.  204,  neatly  characterizes  the  relation 
of  Scholasticism  —  of  which  Anselm  was  one  of  the  most  conspicuous 
exponents  —  to  the  dogma  of  the  Church.  Dogma,  he  says,  affirms 
"Deus  Homo,"  but  Scholasticism  asks  "Cur  Deus  Homo?" 

*  Cur  Deus  Homo,  2.22,  edited  by  Sidney  Norton  Deane. 


l68  THE   INTERPRETATION   OF  THE   BIBLE 

obedience  from  the  things  which  he  suffered  (5:8).  This  is 
rather  a  hard  saying  for  one  who  holds  the  orthodox  Chris- 
tology,  and  Anselm's  treatment  of  it  is  notable.  The  word 
"learned"  {didicit),  he  says,  can  be  understood  in  two 
ways.  We  can  say  either  that  Christ  caused  others  to 
learn  obedience,  or  that  he  learned  by  experiencing  what 
he  had  had  an  understanding  of  before.^  It  is  evident  that 
each  of  these  interpretations  quite  sets  aside  the  obvious 
meaning  of  the  text.  Again,  note  Anselm's  treatment 
of  the  difficult  passage  in  Philippians.  Paul  says  that 
Jesus  humbled  himself,  and  then  asserts,  "Wherefore 
also  God  highly  exalted  him."  Anselm  comments 
thus:  "It  is  not  meant  that  he  could  not  have  attained 
his  exaltation  in  any  other  way  but  by  obedience  unto 
death,  nor  is  it  meant  that  his  exaltation  was  conferred  on 
him  only  as  a  reward  of  his  obedience ;  but  the  expression 
is  used  because  he  had  agreed  with  the  Father  and  the 
Holy  Spirit  that  there  was  no  other  way  to  reveal  to  the 
world  the  height  of  his  omnipotence  except  by  his  death." 
In  the  same  connection  Anselm  explains  a  passage  in 
the  Gospel  (Luke  2  :  52).  Here  is  the  text  with  the  com- 
ment:  "The  Lord  increased  in  wisdom  and  in  favor  with 
God ;  not  that  this  was  really  the  case,  but  he  deported 
himself  as  if  it  were  so."  With  what  sovereign  ease  the 
difficulty  of  the  text  —  difficult  only  for  one  whose  doctrine 
of  Christ  is  not  drawn  from  the  New  Testament  — •  is  put 
out  of  the  way ! 

I  add  yet  another  passage  from  Anselm  for  its  value 
in  presenting  the  almost  infmite  gulf  between  the  scholastic 

'  Cur  Deus  Homo,  1.9. 


BIBLICAL  INTERPRETATION  IN  THE  MIDDLE  AGES     169 

method  of  dealing  with  sacred  persons  and  relations,  and 
the  method  of  the  Bible.  Anselm  asks  why  the  Son  rather 
than  the  Father  or  the  Spirit  became  incarnate.^  "If 
one  of  the  other  persons  had  become  incarnate,"  he  says, 
"there  would  have  been  two  sons  in  the  Trinity  —  the 
Son  before  the  incarnation  and  the  Son  by  the  incarnation. 
Likewise  if  the  Father  become  incarnate,  there  will  be 
two  grandsons  in  the  Trinity ;  for  the  Father  by  assuming 
humanity  will  be  the  grandson  of  the  parents  of  the  Virgin, 
and  the  Word,  though  having  nothing  to  do  with  man,  will 
yet  be  the  grandson  of  the  Virgin,  since  he  will  be  the 
Son  of  her  Son." 

Whether  Aristotle  would  have  worshipped  Anselm  we 
perhaps  cannot  be  quite  sure,  but  it  appears  reasonably 
certain  in  view  of  such  passages  as  the  foregoing  that  one 
cannot  look  to  Scholasticism  as  represented  by  Anselm 
for  light  on  Scripture. 

Fifty-one  years  after  the  death  of  Anselm  appeared 
the  Sentences  of  Peter  Lombard  (f  1164),  on  which  it  is 
said  that  more  than  four  thousand  commentaries  have 
been  written  and  which  dominated  the  theological  schools 
for  three  centuries.^  In  this  famous  work  the  Fathers 
very  largely  take  the  place  of  Scripture.  Thus,  e.g.,  the 
author's  proof  of  the  dogma  that  the  Son  is  always  begotten, 
is  taken  from  the  writings  of  Hilary.^  The  entire  work, 
which  professes  to  deal  systematically  with  the  Christian 

'  Cur  Deus  Homo,  2.  9. 

^  See  Trench,  Mediceval  Church  History,  p.  272;  and  Lecky,  History 
of  European  Morals,  2.  226. 

^  See  Lihri  Quatuor  Sententiarum,  p.  528,  in  Migne's  edition. 


170  THE   INTERPRETATION    OF   THE   BIBLE 

religion,  has  nothing  on  the  subject  of  the  Scriptures. 
They  are  not  once  mentioned  as  a  topic  which  a  theologian 
ought  to  consider.  They  are  indeed  occasionally  cited  in 
proof  of  doctrine,  but  the  system  of  Lombard  would  not 
be  really  affected  if  these  occasional  references  to  the  Bible 
were  expunged.  There  is  little  in  common  between  the 
Bible  and  Lombard's  Sentences  except  names.  The  w^ork 
begins  with  forty-eight  chapters  on  the  Trinity,  but  in  all 
this  the  revelation  of  God  in  Jesus  has  no  part.  They 
afford  no  glimpse  of  the  fatherhood  of  God.  Their  con- 
nection with  Scripture  is  highly  artificial.  The  same  is 
true  of  the  rest  of  the  work  —  of  its  forty-four  chapters 
on  Creation  and  its  forty  chapters  on  the  Incarnation. 
The  pages  are  filled  with  the  discussion  of  questions  such 
as  these :  Were  the  angels  created  perfect  or  imperfect  ? 
Have  all  angels  bodies?  Did  the  Father  beget  the  Son 
freely  or  of  necessity?  Can  God  make  anything  better 
than  he  makes  it  ?  Is  it  right  to  say  that  the  divine  nature 
was  born  of  a  virgin?  Was  it  possible  for  God  to  have 
become  incarnate  in  a  woman? 

Let  us  notice  now  a  few  specimens  of  Lombard's  exegesis. 
In  Is.  65:17  we  read:  "Behold,  I  create  new  heavens 
and  a  new  earth;  and  the  former  things  shall  not  be  re- 
membered nor  come  into  mind."  This  text  is  interpreted 
as  teaching  that  the  redeemed  when  risen  from  the  dead 
will  not  remember  the  evil  deeds  of  their  earthly  life,  but 
only  the  good  deeds.  Again,  from  Eph.  4: 13,  where  Paul 
speaks  of  attaining  unto  the  measure  of  the  stature  of  the 
fulness  of  Christ,  Lombard  concludes  that  all  the  saints, 
whatever  may  have  been  their  age  at  death,  will  each  be 


BIBLICAL  INTERPRETATION  IN  THE  MIDDLE  AGES 


171 


thirty  years  old  in  the  resurrection,  for  that  was  the  age 
of  Clirist  when  he  died  and  rose. 

The  historical  sense  of  Lombard  may  be  judged  from 
his  treatment  of  baptism.  Christian  baptism,  he  says, 
was  instituted  when  Christ  was  baptized  in  Jordan.  For 
he  was  not  baptized  because  he  wished  to  be  cleansed, 
since  he  was  without  sin,  but  he  gave  to  the  waters  regen- 
erating power  by  contact  with  his  flesh,  in  order  that  those 
who  should  henceforth  be  immersed  in  the  name  of  the 
Trinity  might  be  purged  from  their  sins.^ 

Lombard's  Commentary  on  the  Epistles  of  Paul  is 
altogether  in  harmony  with  the  sort  of  exegesis  that  we 
have  in  the  Sentences.  The  index  to  this  commentary  is 
an  index  of  mediaeval  theology.  The  real  apostle  to  the 
Gentiles  does  not  speak  here.  What  one  hears  who  puts 
one's  ear  to  the  book  is  the  echo  of  an  echo  of  a  man  who 
was  originally  misunderstood  and  forced  to  serve  a  system 
of  theology  which  he  had  little  part  in  creating. 

But  we  need  not  judge  the  exegesis  of  the  eleventh  cen- 
tury scholastics  by  Lombard  alone.  He  had  contempo- 
raries no  less  famous  than  himself.  Among  these  was 
Abelard,  whom  Professor  Emerton  calls  "the  most  attrac- 
tive and  brilliant  figure  in  the  whole  scholastic  period."  ^ 
With  a  spirit  akin  to  that  of  Erigena,  who  preceded  him 
by  three  centuries,  he  dared  to  question  the  truth  of  the 
dogmas  of  the  Church.^  Herein  lay  his  significance  for 
the  history  of  the  interpretation  of  Scripture.     But  he  did 

'  Lihri  Quatuor  Sententiarum,  p.  844. 
^  Emerton,  Mediceval  Europe,  p.  453. 
^  Comp.  Owen,  Evenings  with  the  Skeptics,  i.  262. 


172  THE    INTERPRETATION   OF  THE   BIBLE 

not  proceed  against  ecclesiastical  error  from  the  standpoint 
of  a  better  understood  Bible :  he  proceeded  against  it  as 
a  philosopher.  As  an  exegete  he  offers  nothing  new.^  He 
is  an  advocate  of  the  old  threefold  sense  of  Scripture,^ 
and  his  exposition  is  seldom  more  than  a  reproduction 
of  the  Fathers.^  He  differed  from  the  Church  in  regard 
to  the  person  of  Christ  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  but  the 
establishment  of  his  new  view  was  by  a  use  of  the  Bible 
no  less  untenable  than  that  with  which  the  older  view  was 
supposed  to  be  justified.  Thus,  e.g.,  his  discussion  of  the 
Trinity,  like  that  of  Lombard,  contains  not  the  faintest 
idea  of  the  revelation  of  God  in  Jesus. ^  He  finds  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Trinity  "diligently  expressed"  at  the  begin- 
ning of  Genesis  —  a  fact  that  illustrates  the  unhistorical 
character  of  his  exegesis.  In  his  "moral"  explanation  of 
the  story  of  creation  he  says  that  the  primal  confusion  of 
heaven  and  earth  denotes  man,  who  consists  of  a  higher 
and  a  lower  substance,  and  in  his  "allegorical"  interpreta- 
tion of  the  same  story  he  explains  the  six  days  as  meaning 
the  six  ages,  of  infancy,  childhood,  adolescence,  youth, 
age,  and  the  period  of  decrepitude.  In  this  interpretation 
the  luminaries  of  the  fourth  day  signify  the  light  of  the 
Prophets  after  the  Law.^ 
Bernard    of    Clairvaux,    the   successful   antagonist   of 

*  It  is  difficult  to  take  seriously  the  remark  of  Tholuck  who  said,  after 
reading  Abelard's  Commentary  on  Romans,  that  he  hesitated  whether 
it  would  not  be  sufficient  to  republish  it  instead  of  writing  another. 

^  See  Abaelardi  Opera,  edited  by  Cousin,  2.  723. 
^  He  appealed  chiefly  to  Augustin  and  Jerome. 

*  See  Theologia  Christiana  in  Cousin's  Opera,  2.  357  f. 

^  Expositio  in  Hexaemeron,  Migne's  Patrologia  Latina,  vol.  178. 


BIBLICAL  INTERPRETATION  IN  THE  MIDDLE  AGES    173 

Abelard,  did  not  rise  above  him  as  an  interpreter,  though 
his  letters  show  that  he  was  wonderfully  familiar  with 
the  letter  of  Scripture  and  often  quoted  it  with  great 
aptness  and  force.'  He  held  that  the  teaching  of  the 
Pope  could  not  possibly  suffer  defeat,  for  Jesus  said 
to  Peter:  "I  have  prayed  for  thee  that  thy  faith 
fail  not."  Like  all  the  other  exegetes  of  the  period, 
Bernard  was  an  allegorist.  Thus,  in  his  explanation,  the 
hippopotamus  that  in  Job  (40:15-24)  serves  to  illus- 
trate the  power  of  God  denotes  Satan.  The  swelling  river 
at  which  he  does  not  tremble  is  the  human  race,  and  the 
Jordan  over  which  he  is  confident  is  the  elect. 

Bernard  was  an  effective  preacher,  but  how  far  his 
preaching  was  from  being  an  interpretation  of  the  Gospel 
is  strikingly  shown  in  the  fact  that  its  chief  result  was  a 
crusade  to  recover  the  empty  grave  of  Jesus. 

Turning  from  Bernard,  the  ecclesiastic,  to  the  German 
Hugo  of  St.  Victor,  we  find  essentially  the  same  exegetical 
ability.  If  one  is  surprised  and  made  expectant  by  the 
remark  of  Hugo  in  the  Introduction  to  Homilies  on 
Ecclesiastes,  that  he  does  not  make  much  use  of  the  alle- 
gorical sense  because  of  the  common  abuse  of  it,^  one  soon 
discovers  elsewhere  in  his  numerous  writings  that  he 
was  an  habitual  and  even  extreme  allegorist.  The  proph- 
ecy of  Joel  is  allegorized  throughout.  The  "garments  "  of 
which  the  prophet  speaks  in  the  words,  "Rend  your  hearts 

1  See  The  Life  and  Works  of  St.  Bernard,  edited  by  Dom.  John  Mabillon, 
translated  and  edited  with  additional  notes  by  Samuel  J.  Eales. 

2  See  Migne,  Patrologia  Latino,  vol.  175.  115.  It  is,  however,  to  be 
said  that  Hugo  sometimes  abides  by  the  natural  sense  of  a  passage,  as 
Gen.  49,  which  every  one  for  a  thousand  years  had  allegorized. 


174  THE    INTERPRETATION    OF  THE   BIBLE 

and  not  your  garments  "(2:13),  denote  the  examples  of  the 
saints.  When  the  prophet  promises  that  God  will  give  the 
former  and  the  latter  rain,  the  "former  rain  "denotes  the  elo- 
quent words  of  Christ  and  his  apostles,  and  the  "latter  rain" 
is  the  expositions  of  the  spiritual  fathers  together  with  the 
canons  and  decrees.  In  the  words, ' '  The  sun  shall  be  turned 
into  darkness  and  the  moon  into  blood  "  (2:31),  the  "  sun  " 
is  Christ,  and  the  "moon"  is  the  Church.  The  sun  was 
turned  into  darkness  when  Christ  was  fixed  to  the  cross ; 
the  moon  is  turned  to  blood  when  the  Church  imitates 
the  passion  of  Christ. 

As  an  illustration  of  the  critical  value  of  Hugo's  work, 
the  fact  may  be  mentioned  that  he  treated  as  Scripture 
written  in  the  time  of  Ahab  a  compilation  of  the  eighth  or 
ninth  Christian  century,  which  bears  the  name  of  Ahdias. 

This  turgid  stream  of  scholastic  exegesis  ran  on  through 
another  century  and  a  half,  but  we. need  not  follow  it 
farther  than  can  be  done  in  a  few  remarks  on  Bonaventura 
and  Aquinas.  Both  these  men  were  canonized,  and  the 
writings  of  the  former  were  published  by  order  of  the  Pope. 
Bonaventura's  exegesis  maybe  judged  from  two  passages — 
one  from  a  work  on  Daniel,*  the  other  from  a  sermon.' 
The  Ancient  of  Days  in  Dan.  7  : 9-10  is  seen  by  the  prophet 
seated  on  a  throne.  This  attitude  indicates,  says  Bona- 
ventura, eternity  and  immutability.  According  to  the 
Latin  translation,  the  tenth  verse  reads:  "A  fiery  and 
rapid  stream  proceeded  from  his  face."     This  is  said  to 

'  5.  Bonaventurae  opera  omnia  cdita  studio  ct  cura  PP.  Collegii  A.S^ 
Bonaventura,  Tomus  I. 

'  Op.  cit.,  T.  s,  De  triplici  tcstimoniae  sanctissimae  Trinilatis, 


BIBLICAL  INTERPRETATION  IN  THE  MIDDLE  AGES     175 

mean  the  plenitude  of  love  and  the  plenitude  of  virtue  — 
plenitude  of  virtue  in  the  Son,  therefore  the  stream  was 
"rapid"  ;  plenitude  of  love  in  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  therefore 
the  stream  was  "fiery."  In  the  sermon  referred  to,  the 
spiritual  heaven  is  said  to  be  threefold,  corresponding  to 
the  material  heaven.  There  is  the  supreme  heaven,  which 
is  the  divine  nature,  of  which  it  is  said  in  the  Psalm,  "His 
going  forth  is  from  the  highest  heaven  (Ps.  19.  6)."  Then 
there  is  the  middle  heaven,  which  is  the  assumed  nature 
of  Christ,  concerning  which  the  Psalm  says,  "The  Lord's 
seat  is  in  heaven  (Ps.  11.  4)."  This  is  also  designated  in 
Gen.  i:  "Let  there  be  a  firmament  in  the  midst  of  the 
waters."  Finally,  there  is  the  lowest  heaven,  which  is 
the  present  Church,  of  which  it  is  frequently  said  in  the 
Gospels,  "The  Kingdom  of  heaven  is  like"  this  or  that. 

So  far  Bonaventura.  More  famous  still  was  Aquinas, 
who  has  been  called  the  greatest  and  profoundest  teacher 
of  the  Middle  Ages.  By  two  works  is  he  chiefly  known  — 
the  Aurea  Catena,^  a  mosaic  of  quotations  from  twenty- 
three  Latin  and  fifty-seven  Greek  writers  in  exposition 
of  the  four  Gospels,  and  the  Summa  Theologica.  The 
Aurea  Catena  ^  is  a  monument  of  astounding  industry, 
the  Summa  ^  a  monument  of  the  subtlety  of  Aquinas. 
But  neither  of  them,  as  regards  its  exegesis,  shows  original- 
ity or  independence.  By  the  Catena,  Aquinas  is  simply 
shown  to  be  the  greatest  of  the  compilers.^     It  is  not  likely 

*  The  original  title  is  Expositio  continua  super  qiiatuor  Evangelfstas. 
^  I  have  used  the  edition  of  Nicolai,  1851. 

^  My  quotations  are  from  the  edition  of  1763,  16  vols. 

*  Exegetical  collections  in  Greek  had  been  made  by  five  writers  from 


I'/6  THE   INTERPRETATION    OF   THE    BIBLE 

that  he  would  have  made  the  book  had  he  not  believed  that 
the  exposition  of  the  Fathers  was  practically  final.  The 
stately  Sumnia  of  Aquinas  is  more  deeply  influenced  by 
Aristotle  than  by  Christ,  for  its  form  is  throughout  due  to 
the  "philosopher,"  and  as  for  its  content,  that  is  simply 
the  theology  of  the  mediaeval  Church.  Take  such  a  sec- 
tion as  that  on  the  love  of  God  ;  *  even  this  does  not  appeal 
in  any  manner  to  the  revelation  of  divine  love  in  Christ. 
Indeed,  it  does  not  refer  to  him  at  all  except  in  one  article, 
and  then  not  as  showing  God's  love.  It  quotes  but  three 
biblical  books  or  authors  and  five  non-biblical. 

A  single  representative  paragraph  of  the  Summa  will 
sufficiently  indicate  the  strength  and  weakness  of  the  exe- 
gesis of  Aquinas.  He  raises  the  question  whether  the  new 
law  is  contained  in  the  old.  Then,  according  to  his  cus- 
tom, he  adduces  reasons,  scriptural  or  otherwise,  for  the 
affirmative.  He  says  first,  that  the  new  law  consists  in 
faith ;  that  many  things  in  the  new  law  are  to  be  believed 
which  are  not  in  the  old,  and  that,  therefore,  the  new  law 
is  not  in  the  old.  Second,  we  read  in  Matt.  5:  "Break 
not  one  of  these  least  commandments,"  the  reference  being 
to  the  old  law.  But  if  the  commandments  in  the  old  law 
are  "least,"  the  commandments  in  the  Gospel  are  greater. 
The  greater,  however,  cannot  be  contained  in  the  less,  and 
therefore  the  new  law  is  not  contained  in  the  old.  But, 
on  the  contrary, — and  now  comes  the  Scripture  proof  that 
the  new  law  is  contained  in  the  old,  —  wc  read  in  Ezek. 

Procopius  of  Gaza  to  Euthemius  Zigabcnus,  and  in  Latin  there  were 
at  least  seventeen  such  collections  before  Acjuinas. 
^  See  I.  204-211. 


BIBLICAL  INTERPRETATION  IN  THE  MIDDLE  AGES     177 

1:16  that  the  prophet  saw  a  wheel  within  a  wheel ;  that 
is,  the  New  Testament  was  in  the  Old.  Thus  having 
given  Scripture  proof  both  for  the  affirmative  and  the  nega- 
tive of  his  proposition,  he  proceeds  to  his  solution,  which 
is  that  the  New  Testament  is  in  the  Old  as  a  tree  is  in  a 
seed  —  a  very  ancient  but  also  very  pernicious  half-truth.^ 

In  conclusion,  we  may  cite  as  applicable  to  the  exegesis 
of  Aquinas  what  Windelband  says  of  the  later  Scholasti- 
cism :  "With  its  distinctions  and  conclusions  it  was  carry- 
ing on  to  a  certain  extent  a  juggler's  game  in  the  open  air, 
which  indeed  set  the  formal  mental  powers  in  beneficent 
motion,  but  which  in  spite  of  all  its  turns  and  windings 
could  lead  to  no  material  knowledge."  ^ 

In  passing  rapidly  to  the  conclusion  of  our  survey  of 
mediaeval  exegesis,  we  must  note  two  of  the  noblest  men  of 
the  entire  period — Robert  Grosseteste  (bishop  of  Lincoln 
1235-1253)  and  Roger  Bacon  (1214-1292).  Both  had 
a  knowledge  and  appreciation  of  Greek  and  Hebrew 
far  above  that  of  their  century.^  Both  were  in  advance 
of  their  times  in  the  stress  they  laid  on  the  study  of  the 
Bible.^  But  Bacon's  advanced  ideas  regarding  the  value 
of  Greek  and  Hebrew  to  an  interpreter,  which  might  have 

*  Archbishop  Vaughan,  in  his  Life  and  Labors  of  St.  Thomas  Aquinas, 
p.  398,  gives  the  following  example  of  the  exegesis  of  Aquinas:  "Note 
with  regard  to  these  words  '  there  shall  come  forth  a  rod '  (Is.  11 :  i)  that 
the  Blessed  Virgin  is  here  called  a  rod."  She  is  that,  "first,  as  consoling 
in  tribulations;  secondly,  as  fructifying;  thirdly,  as  satiating;  fourthly, 
as  scourging;    and  fifthly,  as  crushing!" 

^Windelband,  A  History  of  Philosophy,  p.  272. 

'  Comp.  Dollinger,  Studies  in  European  History,  p.  178. 

*  Bacon  held  that  children  should  be  carefully  taught  to  read  the 
Bible.     See  Opus  tertium,  p.  54,  in  the  edition  cited  above. 

N 


1 78  THE   INTERPRETATION   OF   THE    BIBLE 

wrought  a  beneficent  change  in  Bible  study,  were  unpub- 
lished for  centuries,  and  Grosseteste,  with  all  his  indepen- 
dence, did  not  depart  essentially  from  the  ecclesiastical 
method  of  interpretation,^  even  as  he  shared  the  ecclesi- 
astical superstition.^  He  went  to  the  Old  Testament  for 
types  of  present  ecclesiastical  officers  and  relations.  Adam 
and  Eve  he  regarded  as  types  of  Christ  and  the  Church. 
Moses  was  the  typical  prelate;  Abel,  Noah,  Abraham, 
Jacob,  and  Joseph  were  types  of  the  bishop ;  and  he  used 
the  Scriptures  regarding  these  men  to  support  his  plans  for 
the  reformation  of  the  clergy  of  his  diocese  in  the  thirteenth 
century. 

Soon  after  the  death  of  Bacon  and  shortly  before  the 
birth  of  WycHf,  Pope  Boniface  VIII  issued  the  famous 
Bull  Unam  Sanctam  (1302)^  from  which  we  will  cite  our 
final  illustration  of  mediaeval  exegesis.  This  Bull  seeks 
to  prove  from  Scripture  that  the  Church  is  one,  and  that 
out  of  it  no  salvation  is  possible.  This  is  accomplished 
by  three  passages.     The  first  is  from  the  Song  of  Solomon 

(6:9):- 
"My  dove,  my  undefiled,  is  one."     This  is  taken  to 

*  Grosseteste  regarded  Philo  as  the  most  subtle  of  all  doctors  in  the 
knowledge  and  interpretation  of  Scripture.  See  Letter  127  in  The  Chron- 
icles and  Memoirs  of  Great  Britain  and  Ireland  in  the  Middle  Ages. 

^  He  defended  the  genuineness  of  the  blood  of  Christ  which  had  been 
sent  to  the  King  and  by  him  had  been  presented  to  Westminster.  See 
Letter  127. 

^  Henderson,  Documents,  p.  435.  A  few  years  after  this  Bull  was  issued, 
the  Council  of  Vienne  (131 1)  made  a  dogma  against  usury,  based  upon  an 
erroneous  translation  of  Luke  6:  35,  where  they  read  nihil  unde  sperantcs 
instead  of  nihil  desperantes.  See  Dollinger,  Studies  in  European  History, 
p.  176. 


BIBLICAL  INTERPRETATION  IN  THE  MIDDLE  AGES     179 

mean  the  mystical  body  of  Christ.  The  second  passage 
is  from  Genesis  (6 :  13-16).  The  ark  of  Noah  symboUzed 
the  Church,  and  as  there  was  but  one  ark,  so  there  is  but 
one  Church;  and  the  fact  that  the  ark  was  finished  "in 
one  cubit"  meant  that  one  Noah  {i.e.  the  Pope  of  any  par- 
ticular age)  was  the  helmsman.  And,  finally,  when  the 
psahnist  says  (22  :  20) :  — 

"  Deliver  my  soul  from  the  sword, 
My  darling  from  the  power  of  the  dog," 

he  means  by  "soul"  Christ  himself,  and  by  "darling" 
he  means  the  Church,  whose  oneness  is  also  plainly  sig- 
nified by  the  seamless  garment  of  Jesus. 

It  remains  now  to  sum  up  in  a  few  words  the  significance 
of  the  long  period  in  the  history  of  Christian  interpretation 
which  we  have  all  too  briefly  considered.  It  furnishes 
a  striking  parallel  to  the  history  of  Old  Testament  inter- 
pretation in  the  Jewish  Synagogue.  The  Fathers  of  the 
early  centuries  answer  to  the  Elders  from  Ezra's  day  down 
to  Christ.  The  traditions  of  the  Elders,  which  not  in- 
frequently eclipsed  and  abrogated  the  law  of  God,  have 
their  counterpart  in  the  expositions  of  the  Christian  Fathers 
from  the  second  to  the  fifth  century,  which  expositions, 
during  the  mediaeval  period,  obscured  and  even  annulled 
the  sense  of  the  divine  word.  To  the  compilation  of  the 
two  Talmuds  the  Catenae  correspond,  which,  beginning 
in  the  sixth  and  seventh  centuries,  grew  up  to  the  propor- 
tions which  we  see  in  the  Aurea  Catena  of  Aquinas.  In 
both  cases  the  Bible  is  treated  as  a  book  of  mysteries,  which 
are  to  be  unfolded  by  mystical  interpretation.     In  the 


l8o  THE    INTERPRETATION   OF   THE   BIBLE 

mediaeval  period  of  the  Church,  as  in  the  Tahnudic  period 
of  the  Synagogue,  an  orthodox  theology,  resting  on  tra- 
dition which  was  interpreted  and  backed  by  ecclesiasti- 
cal authority,  discountenanced  or  anathematized  indepen- 
dent investigation  of  Scripture.  As  among  the  Jews  in 
the  Talmudic  period  the  Old  Testament  was  to  be  read  by 
the  light  of  the  authorized  interpretation,  so  in  the  mediaeval 
period  the  entire  Bible  was  to  be  read,  if  at  all,  through 
the  eyes  of  the  Fathers.  And  so  it  came  to  pass  that  the 
influence  of  the  Fathers  on  the  conceptions  of  Christian 
theology  immeasurably  surpassed  the  influence  of  Christ 
and  his  apostles. 


CHAPTER  VIII 

INTERPRETATION   OF   SCRIPTURE    BY   THE    REFORMERS 

In  passing  from  the  mediaeval  type  of  interpretation  to 
the  modern,  one  must  not  neglect  those  writers  of  the  four- 
teenth and  fifteenth  centuries  whose  use  of  the  Bible  fore- 
shadowed in  some  degree  the  coming  advance.  Among 
these  an  honorable  place  belongs  to  that  man  who  leads 
the  company  of  great  modern  translators  of  the  Scriptures. 

Jolin  Wyclif  (i 324-1 384)  fills  a  larger  place  in  the  history 
of  ecclesiastical  reform  than  he  does  in  the  history  of  inter- 
pretation .  As  a  bold  and  powerful  critic  of  papal  abuses  and 
as  a  mighty  champion  of  the  principle  that  the  authority 
of  the  Bible  is  higher  than  the  authority  of  the  Church,  — 
a  principle  which  had  been  buried  since  the  very  earliest 
Christian  times,  —  it  can  be  said  of  Wyclif  that  he  has 
profoundly  afltected  the  entire  spirit  of  the  Western  world.^ 
His  blow  struck  a  spark  from  the  flint,  Hus  appHed  the 
spark  to  the  coals,  and  Luther,  having  lighted  the  torch  of 
the  Reformation  at  those  coals,  bore  it  aloft  until  all 
Europe  saw  its  light  and  felt  its  heat.^  The  German  re- 
former himself,  apparently  without  knowing  of  the  depen- 
dence of  Hus   on   Wyclif,  exclaimed,  after   he   became 

*  Buddensieg,  Johann  Wiclif  und  seine  Zeit,  p.  3. 
2  These  are  the  parts  assigned  to  the  three  reformers  in  a  woodcut  of 
the  year  1572.     See  Buddensieg,  op.  cit.,  p.  3. 

iSi 


l82  THE    INTERPRETATION    OF   THE    BIBLE 

acquainted  with  the  principles  of  the  Bohemian  martyr, 
"We  are  all  Hussites  without  knowing  it !"  According  to 
the  investigations  of  Loserth/  it  now  appears  that,  in  rec- 
ognizing his  indebtedness  to  Hus,  Luther  was  in  reality 
recognizing  his  indebtedness  to  Wyclif. 

But  though  Wyclif's  significance  as  a  reformer  is  greater 
than  his  significance  as  an  interpreter  of  Scripture,  which 
is  true  also  of  Luther  and  Luther's  age,  we  are  not  to  sup- 
pose that,  even  in  this  latter  capacity,  his  work  was  without 
!  abiding  influence.  It  is  true,  his  method  of  exegesis  was 
thoroughly  mediEeval.  Thus,  with  the  Fathers,  he  found 
Christ  active  in  the  Old  Testament,^  and  saw  there  minute 
prophecies  of  New  Testament  events.^  Like  the  mediaeval 
interpreters,  he  was  almost  entirely  ignorant  of  Greek,* 
and,  what  is  more  significant,  was  a  slave  to  the  allegorical 
method  of  interpretation.  Simple  historical  events,  like 
Christ's  sleeping  in  the  boat,^  and  material  objects  like 
Solomon's  temple,^  were  mystically  understood.  Wychf 
treated  plain  narratives  in  the  genuine  Alexandrian  way. 
Thus,  for  example,  commenting  on  Mark  7:31,  which 
says  that  Jesus  went  out  from  the  borders  of  Tyre  and 
came  through  Sidon  to  the  Sea  of  Galilee  through  the  midst 

*  Wiclif  and  Hus,  English  translation.  Loserth  shows  conclusively 
that  Hus  (1369-1415)  was  completely  dominated  by  Wyclif. 

^  See  Select  English  Works  of  John  Wyclif,  edited  from  Mss.  by 
Thomas  Arnold,  3.  82,  85,  87,  89. 

^  See,  e.g.,  Select  Works,  3.  222:  "The  Holy  Ghost  saith  of  Judas 
Iscariot  (Ps.  109:  7),  'His  prayer  be  made  into  sin.'" 

*  See  Capes,  The  English  Church  in  the  Fourteenth  and  Fifteenth  cen- 
turies, p.  no;  and  Buddensieg,  Johann  Wiclif  und  seine  Zeit,  p.  177. 

^  See  Select  Works,  i.  107. 

*  See  Tractatus  de  ccclesia,  edited  by  Loserth,  p.  125. 


INTERPRETATION    OF   SCRIPTURE   BY   REFORMERS    183 

of  the  borders  of  Decapolis,  he  interprets  the  going  from 
the  land  of  Tyre  as  referring  to  Christ's  going  from  the 
bosom  of  the  Father,  by  virtue  of  a  fanciful  etymology 
of  the  word  "Tyre";  the  coming  to  Sidon  was  fulfilled 
when  the  angel  Gabriel  came  to  Mary,  this  notion  being 
derived  from  a  double  etymology  of  the  word  "Sidon"; 
the  going  to  the  Lake  of  Galilee  meant  going  to  men,  for 
the  word  "Galilee"  means  "a  wheel  whirling,"  which  is 
said  to  be  an  appropriate  symbol  of  mankind  after  the  fall/ 
It  will  thus  be  noticed  that  the  deeper  meaning  of  this  pas- 
sage is  all  derived  by  Wyclif  from  the  supposed  etymologies 
of  the  geographical  names  contained  in  it,  —  an  exposition 
worthy  of  Philo.  Again,  explaining  the  parable  of  the 
Merciful  Samaritan,^  Wyclif  says  that  the  man  who  went 
down  from  Jerusalem  to  Jericho  signifies  our  first  parents. 
The  thieves  were  fiends ;  the  priest  stood  for  the  patriarchs ; 
the  Levite  for  the  prophets  and  other  saints.  These  all 
passed  by  as  knowing  that  they  could  not  help  one  who 
had  fallen  into  sin  through  the  temptation  of  the  fiend. 
The  Samaritan  was  Jesus,  who  is  appropriately  represented 
as  a  Samaritan  stranger  because  of  his  Godhead  !  The  oil 
poured  on  the  wounds  meant  the  hope  of  heaven,  and  the 
wine  was  sharp  words  "to  prick  men  from  sin."  Setting 
the  wounded  man  on  his  own  beast  was  accomplished  when 
Jesus  made  his  own  manhood  to  bear  our  sin.  "The 
following  day,"  when  the  Samaritan  left  his  charge  at  the 
inn,   signifies  the   time   after  the   resurrection,   and   the 

1  See  Select  Works,  i.  29.     Wyclif  held  the  theory  of  a  fourfold  sense. 
See  Works,  4.  277,  where  it  is  presented  in  a  sermon. 
^  See  Select  Works,  i.  31  f. 


l84  THE   INTERPRETATION  OF  THE  BIBLE 

"twopence"  which  he  gave  for  the  care  of  the  wounded  are 
his  "Godhead  and  manhood,  to  feed  mankind  till  the  day 
of  doom."  The  innkeeper  is  all  whom  God  has  chosen  to 
feed  his  Church. 

Plainly,  this  interpretation  utterly  obscures  the  simple 
and  practical  teaching  of  the  words  of  Jesus ;  and  like  this 
there  is  much  in  Wyclif's  writings.^ 

But  there  is,  fortunately,  another  aspect  of  Wyclif's 
activity  in  its  bearing  upon  the  Scripture.  There  are 
two  points  in  which,  notwithstanding  his  false  method  of 
exegesis,  his  biblical  work  was  of  value.  In  the  first  place, 
he  magnified  the  Bible  —  a  great  event  after  a  thousand 
years  of  neglect.  "If  there  were  a  hundred  popes,"  he 
said  in  a  strain  that  reminds  us  of  Luther,  "and  if  all  friars 
were  cardinals,  one  ought  not  to  trust  them  in  matters  of 
faith,  except  as  they  agree  with  Holy  Scripture."  "In 
a  single  word  of  Peter  there  is  more  profitable  doctrine 
than  in  all  decretals  and  bulls."  ^  The  depth  and  power  of 
his  conviction  of  the  infinite  importance  of  Scripture  was 
manifested  in  his  translation  of  the  Bible  into  EngHsh. 
This  translation,  though  circulated  in  manuscript,  was,  more 
than  any  other  single  force,  the  means  of  maintaining  spirit- 
ual Ufe  in  England  during  the  century  and  a  half  that  inter- 
vened between  Wyclif's  death  and  Tyndale's  translation. 

There  was  also  a  second  feature  of  Wyclif's  work  that  is 
noteworthy  in  the  history  of  interpretation.  He  had  some 
sense  of  the  historical  development  of  Scripture.     This  was 

*  See  De  ecclesia,  pp.  472  f.     The  "worthy  woman"  of  Prov.  31  is 
elaborately  explained  as  the  Church.     See  also  i.  4,  12;   2.  258,  305. 
'  Buddensieg,  op.  cit.,  pp.  179,  196. 


INTERPRETATION    OF   SCRIPTURE   BY   REFORMERS     185 

doubtless  very  imperfect,  perhaps  an  instinctive  feeling 
rather  than  an  intellectual  perception,  yet  it  was  a  most  un- 
usual phenomenon ;  a  gleam  of  a  truth  that  was  to  emerge 
into  clear  manifestation  in  coming  time.  It  was  this  sense 
of  development  which  led  Wyclif ,  unlike  any  preacher  who 
had  gone  before  him  for  many  centuries,  to  find  the  almost 
exclusive  material  of  his  preaching  in  the  Gospel.  Of  the 
two  hundred  and  ninety-four  sermons  in  Arnold's  edition 
of  Wyclif 's  English  works,  three  only  are  on  Old  Testament 
texts,  fifty-two  on  texts  from  the  Epistles,  and  two  hundred 
and  thirty-nine  on  the  Gospels. 

It  is  true  that  Wyclif,  influenced  by  the  Fathers,  saw 
Christ  personally  active  in  the  Old  Testament,  for  example, 
uttering  the  words  of  the  Decalogue ;  ^  yet  in  his  preaching 
he  gravitated  steadily  to  the  Gospel  as  the  full  and  final 
revelation  of  Christ. 

Quite  different  from  Wyclif  as  interpreters,  and  yet  like 
him  belonging  to  the  coming  age,  in  some  measure,  were 
John  Gerson  (1363-1429),^  and  John  of  Goch  (ti475). 
Both  were  deeply  convinced  of  the  necessity  of  setting  up 
the  literal  sense  of  Scripture  as  the  absolute  standard  for 
the  Church.  Gerson  belonged  to  the  Middle  Ages  in  one 
fundamental  point ;  namely,  that  he  made  the  authority  of 
the  Church  supreme  in  determining  the  sense  of  Scripture. 
The  literal  sense  is  to  be  judged,  he  says,  according  as  the 
Church,  inspired  and  governed  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  has  de- 

»  See,  e.g.,  Select  Works,  3.  87,  89. 

'  Gerson,  "doctor  christianissimus,"  was  born  near  Rheims,  became 
chancellor  of  the  University  of  Paris,  and  was  prominent  at  the  Councils 
of  Pisa  and  Constance. 


l86  THE   INTERPRETATION   OF  THE   BIBLE 

termined,  and  not  according  to  the  judgment  and  interpre- 
tation of  any  individual/  The  rigidity  of  Gerson's  convic- 
tion on  this  matter  is  apparent  when  he  declares  that  those 
who  deny  the  literal  sense  of  Scripture  as  determined  and 
received  by  the  Church  ought  not  to  be  treated  with  curi- 
ous ratiocinations  {curiosis  ratiocinationibus) ,  but  with  fixed 
punishments.^  In  harmony  with  this  principle  he  voted  for 
the  burning  of  Hus.  John  of  Goch,  though  allowing  the 
fourfold  sense  of  Scripture,  was  in  advance  of  his  age  in  his 
preference  for  the  literal  sense,  and  yet  more  in  his  insist- 
ence that,  in  theological  argumentation,  the  exclusive  ap- 
peal should  be  to  the  literal  sense. ^ 

Of  greater  influence  on  interpretation  than  Gerson  and 
Goch  were  the  unknown  author  of  the  Theologia  Germania 
and  Thomas  a  Kempis  (11471).  The  Theologia  Ger- 
mania *  (probably  of  the  fifteenth  century)  was  deeply 
influenced  by  Tauler  ^  (11363),  the  mystic  of  Strassburg, 
and  was  in  turn  a  serious  force  in  moulding  Luther's 
belief.®     It  shares  with  the  Imitation  of  Christ  by  a  Kempis 

*  See  Propositiones  de  sensu  litierali  sacrae  scripturae  in  the  Opera 
omnia,  edited  by  Du  Pin,  Antwerp,  1706,  Propositio  3.  Gerson  appears 
to  have  been  the  first  writer  to  treat  of  the  literal  sense  of  Scripture  in  a 
systematic  manner.     His  twelve  propositions  are  of  very  unequal  value. 

^  See  op.  cit.,  Propositio  7. 

^  See  Ullmann,  Reformers  before  the  Reformation,  i.  54. 

*  The  first  published  title  of  the  book  was  Ein  deiitsch  Theologia. 

"  It  quotes  from  Tauler  forty  times,  from  Boethius  fifteen  times.  See 
the  translation  of  S.  Winkworlh. 

*  Luther,  in  his  Vorrcde  to  the  book  (15 18),  says,  "Und  das  ich  nach 
meynem  alten  narren  riime,  ist  myr  nehst  dcr  Biblien  und  S.  Augustino 
nit  vorkummen  eyn  Buch,  dar  auss  ich  mehr  erlernet  hab  und  will,  was 
got,  Christus,  mensch  und  alle  ding  sein."  See  Bohlau's  edition  of  Lu- 
ther's Werke,  i.  378-379. 


INTERPRETATION   OF   SCRIPTURE   BY   REFORMERS      187 

the  honor  of  being  one  of  the  two  most  widely  circulated 
writings  of  the  fifteenth  century.  Both  the  Theologia 
Germania  and  the  Imitation  are  remarkably  free  from  alle- 
gorical interpretation  of  Scripture,  more  so  than  the  writ--, 
ings  of  the  German  reformers.  They  make  little  formal 
use  of  the  sacred  text,  as  compared  with  the  writings  of  the 
Schoolmen,  e.g.,  Bernard  of  Clairvaux,  or  the  writings  of 
the  Carlovingian  times,  and  yet,  far  beyond  any  of  the 
Schoolmen  or  any  preceding  mediaeval  writer,  they  impress 
on  the  reader  the  truth  of  Scripture.  They  are  not  so  much 
an  interpretation  of  the  letter  of  Scripture  as  an  incarnation 
of  its  spirit.^  Their  interest  in  the  Bible  is  altogether  prac-  ' 
tical.  They  move  among  the  great  moral  and  spiritual / 
passages  whose  main  purport  is  clear.  More  than  any 
writings  for  a  thousand  years  prior  to  WycHf  they  find  their 
sustenance  in  the  New  Testament  rather  than  in  the  Old. 
No  writing  of  the  mediaeval  period  is  to  be  compared  with 
the  Imitation  in  its  spiritual  apprehension  of  Jesus.^ 
Thus  these  writings,  in  spite  of  their  mediasvalism  at  many 
points,  afford  a  noble  illustration  of  practical  exegesis. 
They  do  not  belong  to  the  scientific  literature  of  interpre- 
tation, but  they  are  splendid  monuments  of  the  reaction 
from  barren  scholastic  exegesis,  and  bear  abiding  witness 
to  the  general  intelligibihty  of  the  Bible.^ 

'  Every  intelligent  reader  of  the  Imitation  knows  that  its  conception  of 
Christianity  has  some  rather  serious  defects,  as,  for  example,  its  devotion 
to  the  monastic  ideal  of  life. 

^  See,  e.g.,  Book  2,  chapter  8. 

^  John  Wessel  (f  1489),  a  pupil  of  h.  Kempis  and  said  to  have  taught 
Reuchlin  the  elements  of  Hebrew  (see  Mayerhoff,  JoJiann  Reurhlin 
und  seine  Zcit,  p.  2),  put  the  authority  of  Scripture  above  that  of  the 


1 88  THE   INTERPRETATION   OF   THE    BIBLE 

When  now  we  pass  from  the  exegesis  of  Wyclif  and  even 
from  that  of  the  Imitation  and  the  Theologia  Germania 
to  that  of  the  early  part  of  the  sixteenth  century,  we  are  at 
once  aware  of  the  presence  of  a  new  force.  Men  are  no 
more  deeply  in  earnest  to  know  what  the  Scriptures  teach 
than  were  a  Kempis  and  Wyclif,  but  their  earnestness  has 
a  new  direction.  No  longer  do  they  stop  at  the  Vulgate, 
as  had  been  the  universal  custom  for  centuries,  but  with 
grammar  and  lexicon  at  their  side  they  are  poring  over  the 
Hebrew  Old  Testament  and  the  Greek  New  Testament. 
This  was  an  event  which  both  for  that  time  and  for  the  future 
was  quite  worthy  to  be  placed  side  by  side  with  the  discov- 
ery of  the  New  World.  It  was  an  event  which  in  its  sig- 
nificance for  the  interpretation  of  Scripture  was  without 
parallel  since  the  composition  of  the  New  Testament. 

This  new  method  of  studying  the  Bible  stood  in  closest 
connection  with  the  reformation  of  the  Church,  yet  was  not 
the  cause  of  that  reformation.  The  real  cause  is  suggested 
by  Luther  in  his  Table  Talk,  when  he  says  that  Wyclif 
and  Hus  attacked  the  immoral  conduct  of  the  papists,  and 
that  he  himself  had  chiefly  resisted  their  doctrine}  That 
is  to  say,  the  Reformation  was  caused  by  the  intolerable 
abuses  of  ecclesiastical  authority  which  everywhere  pre- 
vailed. The  reformers  of  the  sixteenth  century  did  not 
become  such  through  a  new  method  of  interpreting  the 
Scripture,  though  they  had  from  the  beginning  a  more 

Church  and  advocated  a  natural  interpretation.     See  Kettlewell,  Thomas 
a  Kempis,  2.  334. 

'  See  The  Table  Talk  or  Familiar  Discourse  of  Martin  Luther,  Hazlitt's 
edition,  p.  415. 


INTERPRETATION   OF   SCRIPTURE   BY  REFORMERS     189 

spiritual  apprehension  of  its  great  truths  than  was  to  be 
found  among  the  leaders  of  the  Church ;  but,  being  impelled 
to  be  reformers  by  the  reaction  of  a  sound  moral  and  reli- 
gious nature  against  the  corruption  of  the  Church,  they 
eagerly  seized  on  the  new  method  of  approach  to  revealed 
truth  as  a  providential  instrument  with  which  to  fortify 
and  defend  their  position. 

This  new  method  of  approaching  the  Bible  was  a  part 
of  the  "new  learning,"  that  broad  intellectual  movement 
of  which  Luther  vn-ote  in  1525:  "I  am  convinced  that 
pure  theology  cannot  exist  without  knowledge  of  the 
sciences,  as  hitherto  it  has  lain  prostrate  with  their  fall. 
Yea,  I  see  that  a  revelation  of  the  divine  word  would  never 
have  been  made  but  for  the  rediscovery  of  languages  (i.e., 
the  cultivation  of  Greek  and  Hebrew)  and  sciences."  * 

The  new  learning  arose  in  Italy  in  the  fifteenth  century, 
and  had  there  its  most  brilliant  period  at  the  close  of  that 
century  and  in  the  first  quarter  of  the  next.^  It  was 
fostered  by  the  highest  ecclesiastics,  as  Alexander  VI 
(t  1503),  Julius  II  (f  1513),  and  Leo  X  (f  1521),  uncon- 
scious, of  course,  that  what  they  vied  with  one  another  in 
promoting  would  one  day  help  to  shake  their  power 
to  its  very  centre  and  rob  them  of  a  large  part  of  their 
income. 

North  of  the  Alps,  England  and  Germany  were  the  first 
to  transplant  the  new  learning  and  to  show  a  development 

'  Quoted  by  Holstein  in  Die  Reformation  im  Spiegelbilde  der  drama- 
tischen  Litteratur  des  sechzehntcn  Jahrhunderts,  p.  14.  See  Schriften  des 
Vereins  fur  Reformatiovsgeschichte,  Nos.  14-15. 

^  See,  in  general,  on  this  period,  Cambridge  Modern  History,  vol.  II ; 
Medicean  Rome,  chapter  i. 


I  go  THE    INTERPRETATION    OF   THE   BIBLE 

that  affected  the  interpretation  of  Scripture.  Grocyn 
taught  Greek  at  Oxford  in  1490,  Linacre,  who  was  famous 
in  1500,  was  one  of  the  teachers  of  Erasmus,  and  Colet 
lectured  at  Oxford  on  the  Epistles  of  Paul  in  1497.^  All 
these  had  studied  in  Italy.  Among  the  Germans  Agricola 
taught  Greek  at  Heidelberg  in  1483,"  Pelhcan  pubhshed  the 
first  help  to  the  study  of  Hebrew  in  1503,^  Erasmus  pub- 
lished his  Praise  of  Folly  in  151 1,  and  Reuchlin  was  pro- 
fessor of  Greek  and  Hebrew  at  Ingolstadt  in  15 19. 

The  desire  to  learn  Greek  and  Hebrew  was  little  less 
than  a  passion.'*  Reuchlin  (1455-1523)  had  private  pupils 
in  Hebrew  many  years  before  the  establishment  of  a 
professorship  in  this  language.  Melanchthon  at  Witten- 
berg in  1 5 18  was  thronged  by  students  eager  to  learn 
Greek. ^  Two  years  earlier  Erasmus  wrote  that  the 
generality  of  the  scholars  whom  he  met  in  Basel  under- 
stood Hebrew,^  and  a  little  later  Zwingli  reports  of  his 
colleagues  in  Zurich  that  many  of  them  knew  Hebrew  and 
Greek. ^     The  curriculum  of  certain  grammar  schools  in 

'  See  Einstein,  The  Italian  Renaissance  in  England,  pp.  30-39. 

'  A  professorship  was  not  established  there  till  1498.  See  Mayerhoff, 
Johann  Reuchlin  und  seine  Zeit,  p.  35.  On  the  religious  aim  of  the  Ger- 
man Humanists  see  Maurenbrecher,  Geschichte  der  Katholischen  Refor- 
mation, I.  65. 

'  The  title  of  this  booklet  was  De  niodo  legendi  et  intcUigendi  hchraea. 

*  This  intensity  characterized  the  entire  intellectual  movement.  Hut- 
ten  exclaimed,  "  O  Age,  O  Science,  it  is  a  joy  to  live  !"  See  Roth,  Willi- 
bald  Pirkheimer,  in  Schriften  des  Vereins  JUr  Reformationsgeschichte, 
No.  21. 

*  See  Hugo  Holstein,  op.  cit.,  p.  13. 

"  See  Hagenbach,  History  of  the  Reformation,  i.  6g. 

'  See  Jackson,  Selected  Works  of  Huldreich  Zwingli,  p.  57. 


INTERPRETATION   OF   SCRIPTURE   BY    REFORMERS    191 

Germany,  as  Isnyand  Ilfeld,  included  the  study  of  Hebrew.* 
Erasmus  met  men  at  Strassburg  and  elsewhere  who 
thought  that  if  they  only  knew  Hebrew,  they  might  neglect 
all  other  languages  and  the  sciences?  There  were  ten  or 
more  Hebrew  grammars  and  lexicons  published  in  the 
first  half  of  the  sixteenth  century  in  Germany  and  Switzer- 
land —  an  amazing  number  when  one  considers  the  labor 
necessary  to  such  a  work  at  that  time  and  the  great  expense 
of  printing  books  in  Hebrew.^ 

The  awakened  interest  in  Greek  was  largely  directed 
toward  the  Bible.  It  was  studied  as  the  key  to  the  under-| 
standing  of  the  New  Testament.  Hebrew  in  like  mannet 
was  pursued  for  the  sake  of  the  Old  Testament.  Reuch- 
lin's  aim  in  all  his  Hebrew  studies  was  to  promote  the 
knowledge  of  God.'*  And  yet  the  pupils  of  the  new 
learning  did  not  directly  promote  the  science  of  interpre- 
tation. Reuchlin,  its  foremost  Hebrew  scholar,  was  a 
believer  in  the  extreme  form  of  mystical  interpretation,'' 
and  Erasmus,  its  most  distinguished  representative,  held 
Origen  to  be  the  incomparable  exegete.®  He  classed 
Origen   with    Jerome,   and   both  with   Paul.''     It   is   not 

*  See  Geiger,  Das  Stiidium  der  hebr.  Sprache  in  Deutschland  vom  Endc 
des  XV.  bis  zur  Mitle  des  xi'i.  Jahrhunderts,  p.  128. 

^  See  Geiger,  op.  cit.,  p.  5. 

'  Boschenstein,  Capito,  Cellarin,  Fagius,  Forster,  and  Miinster  put 
forth  grammars  or  lexicons  or  both,  in  addition  to  Pelhcan  and  Reuchlin. 
See  Geiger,  op.  cit. 

*  See  Mayerhoff,  Johann  Reuchlin  tend  seine  Zeit,  p.  45. 

*  Of  his  De  verbo  mirifico  (1495)  ^^^^^  editions  were  published  in  the 
sixteenth  century.     See  Mayerhoff,  op.  cit. 

'  See  his  Ratio  sen  methodus  compendio  perveniendi  ad  veram  tlieolo- 
giam,  T.  5  of  the  Opera  omnia,  1704. 
'  See  the  Enchiridion,  2  and  8. 


192  THE    INTERPRETATION   OF   THE   BIBLE 

strange,  then,  that  his  o^vn  exegetical  writings  show  every- 
where the  leaven  of  the  mystical  principle.  The  letter  of 
Scripture,  he  says,  is  often  barren  or  even  absurd,  and 
is  to  be  despised.  David's  adultery,  Samson's  love  of  a 
harlot,  the  sin  of  Lot's  daughters,  and  a  thousand  similar 
things  are  illustrations  of  this  class  of  Scriptures,  and 
must  all  be  understood  allegorically.  Not  only  by  its 
adherence  to  the  allegorical  method  but  also  by  its  dog- 
matic character,  the  exegesis  of  Erasmus  is  seen  to  be 
essentially  mediaeval.  It  maintains  the  traditional  dog- 
mas of  the  Church.* 

But  Humanism  helped  to  lay  foundations  for  a  better 
interpretation  of  Scripture,  though  itself  unable  to  build 
thereon.  Luther  looked  up  to  Reuchlin  as  a  father, 
and  used  his  lexicon  in  the  translation  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment. Aleander,  the  papal  nuntio,  writing  from  Worms 
in  1 52 1,  calls  Erasmus  "the  great  corner- stone "  of  the 
German  heresy,^  and  though  this  was  not  true  in  the  sense 
in  which  he  thought  it  true,  for  Erasmus  remained  in  the 
fold  of  the  Church,  yet  in  an  important  sense  it  was  true. 
The  writings  of  Erasmus  doubtless  did  more  than  any 
other  single  agency  for  the  promotion  of  the  study  of 

'  See,  e.g.,  the  Paraphrasis  in  evangelium  secundum  Joanneum,  Basileae, 
1523.  In  the  rendering  of  chapter  i  :  i  we  read,  "Nee  sic  adhaerebat 
patri,  quemadmodum  accidens  adhaeret  substantiae,  sed  deus  erat  ex 
deo,  deus  erat  in  deo,  deus  erat  apud  deum."  And  see  also  the  para- 
phrase of  vs.  10. 

'  See  his  letter  to  Reuchlin,  15 18,  in  Holstein's  Die  Reformationim  Spie- 
gelbilde  der  dramatischen  Littcraiur  des  sechzchnlen  Jahrhundcrts,  p.  15. 

'  See  Kalkoff,  Die  Dcpeschen  des  Nuntius  Aleander,  p.  48,  in  Schriften 
des  Vcrcins  fur  Refonnationsgeschichte,  No.  17. 


INTERPRETATION   OF  SCRIPTURE   BY  REFORMERS     193 

Greek  and  Hebrew/  and  for  the  creation  of  an  atmosphere 
in  which  the  Reformation  might  reahze  its  aims.  Because 
he  did  this  fundamental  work,  the  word  of  Aleander  con- 
tained much  truth.  But  it  is  scarcely  possible  to  justify 
the  statement  of  a  modern  writer  who  says  that  "the  spirit 
of  Erasmus  is  the  life  of  scientific  criticism,  the  breath 
of  modern  scholarship."  ^  Erasmus  was  not  a  critical 
scholar,^  and  was  not  a  progressive  interpreter.  His  great 
service  for  interpretation,  like  that  of  Reuchlin,  was 
indirect.  How  the  reformers  used  the  new  learning,  what 
they  accomplished  for  the  interpretation  of  Scripture  with 
the  instruments  which  Erasmus  and  Reuchlin  and  their 
fellow- laborers  made  ready  to  their  hand,  we  have  now  to 
consider.* 

Martin  Luther  at  the  age  of  twenty-two  began  to  study 
the  Bible  seriously,  especially  the  prophets  and  Paul ;  ^  at' 

^  For  exhortations  to  the  study  of  Greek  and  Hebrew  see,  e.g.,  the 
Apologia,  third  edition,  1522,  and  the  Ratio  perveniendi  ad  veram  theo- 
logiam. 

^  See  Beard  in  The  Hibhert  Lectures  for  1883,  p.  73. 

^  On  the  character  of  his  Greek  New  Testament  see  Nestle,  Introduction 
to  the  Textual  Criticism  of  the  Greek  New  Testament. 

*  Through  Reuchlin  and  his  fellow -laborers  the  great  medieval  Jewish 
scholars  —  Saadia  (892-942),  Rashi  (1040-1105),  and  Kimchi  (1160- 
1235)  —  became  a  power  in  the  Christian  Church.  Nicolas  de  L>Ta  was 
influenced  by  Rashi  (see  Morris  Liber  on  Rashi  in  the  Jewish  Encyclo- 
pcedia)  and  in  turn  influenced  Luther  (see  Table  Talk,  p.  234).  Pagninus' 
grammar  is  said  to  be  merely  a  reproduction  of  Kimchi's  (see  Levias  in 
Jewish  Encyclopcpdia,  article  "Kimchi"),  and  Reuchlin  published  a  revised 
edition  of  Kimchi's  Hebrew  grammar  in  1520.  His  own  Hebrew  gram- 
mar followed  Kimchi's.  See  Geiger,  op.  cit.,  p.  56.  Paul  Fagius  pub- 
lished Kimchi's  commentary  on  the  first  ten  Psalms. 

*Sea  Gieseler's  Kirchengeschichte,  3.  i.  11;   Table  Talk,  p.  15. 
o 


194  THE    INTERPRETATION    OF   THE    BIBLE 

the  age  of  twenty-nine,  with  a  slight  knowledge  of  Greek 
and  Hebrew,  he  was  expounding  the  Scripture  at  Witten- 
berg ;  ^  at  thirty-five  he  was  studying  Greek  with  ]\Ielanch- 
thon ;  ^  at  thirty-eight  he  began  his  translation  of  the  New 
Testament ;  at  forty-four  he  published  his  commentary'  on 
Genesis,  and  seven  years  later  his  translation  of  the  Old 
Testament.  It  will  be  seen  from  this  outline  that  Luther's 
knowledge  of  Greek  and  Hebrew  was  chiefly  acquired 
after  he  had  passed  thirty,  and  when  he  was  plunged  in  the 
heat  of  controversy  and  the  thousand  distractions  of  his 
reformatory  work.^  In  the  study  of  Greek  he  was  helped, 
as  we  have  seen,  by  his  younger  colleague,  Melanchthon, 
but  in  Hebrew  he  appears  to  have  been  thrown  almost 
entirely  on  his  own  private  study.*  It  is  also  important 
to  notice  that,  when  he  began  his  exegetical  publications,'' 
he  was  engaged  in  the  overthrow  of  papal  doctrine.  It 
would  be  strange,  indeed,  if  his  intense  polemical  interests 
had  not  warped  his  exegetical  faculty. 

In  approaching  Luther  as  an  exegete,  while  it  is  interest- 
ing to  know  that  he  had  at  hand  philological  aids  for  ascer- 
taining the  meaning  of  Greek  and  Hebrew  words,  it  is  no 
less  interesting  to  know  his  attitude  toward  the  Fathers. 

'  See  Kostlin,  Martin  Luther,  scin  Lehen  und  seine  Schriften,  i.  115. 

^  See  Kostlin,  op.  cit.,  i.  293. 

^  The  Theses  were  nailed  up  October  31,  1517,  and  the  Bull  burned 
December  12,  1520.  ^~ 

^Luther  had  a  Hebrew  lexicon  while  at  Erfurt  (1501-1508)  (see 
Kostlin,  I.  115),  and  while  in  Wittenberg  he  may  have  received  instruc- 
tion from  Bdschenstein  and  others  who,  with  a  good  many  interruptions, 
taught  Hebrew  in  the  University. 

'His  Latin  commentary  on  Galatians  was  published  in  1519,  the 
O pcrationes  in  Psalmos,  1519-1521. 


INTERPRETATION   OF   SCRIPTURE   BY   REFORMERS     195 

He  appears  not  to  have  realized  how  deeply  he  was  de- 
pendent upon  them,  whether  as  interpreter  or  as  theo- 
logian. In  principle,  he  rejected  allegorical  interpretation, 
and  declared  that  he  had  based  his  teaching  upon  the  literal 
sense  of  Scripture.^  Origen,  whom  Erasmus  exalted  so 
highly,  was  to  Luther  naught  but  foolishness.^  It  was 
doubtless  because  of  their  allegorizing,  as  well  as  because 
of  their  failure  to  teach  his  doctrine  of  justification,  that 
Luther  said  of  the  teachers  of  the  early  Church:  "When 
God's  word  is  expounded  and  glossed  by  the  Fathers,  it  is 
as  when  one  strains  milk  through  a  coal-sack."^  We  shall 
see  when  we  come  to  examine  some  of  Luther's  exegetical 
work  whether  his  practice  agreed  with  his  theory  in  this 
matter  of  allegory,  or  whether,  after  all,  the  Fathers  were 
not  a  great  constraining  force  with  him. 

We  are  not  concerned  with  the  theology  of  Luther  except 
as  it  has  a  bearing  on  his  interpretation  of  Scripture. 
Now  it  is  plain  from  his  writings  that,  although  he  often 
criticised  the  Fathers  and  depreciated  their  teaching  of 
Christianity,  as,  for  example,  when  he  said  regarding 
Melanchthon's  Loci  Communes  that  all  the  Fathers  and  all 
the  writers  of  sentences  were  of  less  worth, ^  he  nevertheless 
was,  as  Harnack  has  said,  "the  restorer  of  the  old  dogma," 
who  unconsciously  "gave  new  hfe  to  the  formulae  of  Greek 
Christianity."  ^    His  deep  aversion  to  papal  doctrine  which 

'  See  Table  Talk,  p.  6.  In  Bohlau's  edition  of  Luther's  Werke,  3.  11, 
Luther  says :  "  In  scripturis  nulla  videlicet  allegoria,  tropologia,  anagoge 
nisi  alibi  historice  idem  expresse  dicatur.  Alioquin  ludibrium  ficret 
scriptura." 

^  Ibid.,  p.  328.  ■*  Ibid.,  p.  21. 

'  Ibid.,  p.  228.  5  See  History  of  Dogma,  7.  173. 


196  THE   INTERPRETATION   OF  THE   BIBLE 

virtually  exalted  the  teaching  of  the  Fathers  above  the 
Scripture  itself  led  him  to  strong  utterances  on  their  weak- 
ness and  inadequacy/  and  yet  their  conceptions  are  his 
conceptions.  The  sphere  of  his  reform  was  divine  wor- 
ship, not  biblical  theology.^  When  he  was  at  Erfurt  he 
often  read  the  works  of  Augustin,  and  he  says  that  he 
remembered  them  well.^  The  fundamental  ancient  con- 
ceptions entered  into  his  very  blood,  and  he  never  asked 
whether  they  were  according  to  Scripture.  When  he 
broke  away  from  the  Fathers  in  the  doctrine  of  inspiration, 
his  view  was  uncertain.  At  one  time  he  advocated  the 
right  to  use  reason  in  the  investigation  of  Scripture,  and 
his  own  practice  shows  that  he  felt  himself  free  to  criticise 
not  only  the  canon  but  also  the  comparative  value  of  vari- 
ous biblical  books;*  but  in  principle  he  clung  to  verbal 
inspiration.  We  ought  not  to  criticise  the  Scriptures  by 
our  mere  reason,  he  says,  but  the  Holy  Ghost  must  be  our 
only  master.^  He  identified  the  Scriptures  with  the  word 
of  God.'  Thus  he  wavered  between  two  irreconcilable 
principles,  though  in  his  later  years  he  was  increasingly 
hostile  to  reason,  which  he  even  styled  "the  all-cnielest 
and  most  fatal  enemy  of  God."  ^ 

'  See,  e.g..  Table  Talk,  pp.  530,  534,  539. 
^  See  Harnack,  History  of  Dogma,  7.  191. 
^  So  Melanchthon,  quoted  by  Gieseler,  Kirchengeschichte,  3.  i.  12. 

*  Thus  he  admitted  the  existence  of  errors  in  Scripture  (see  Romberg, 
Die  Lchre  Luther's  von  der  heiligen  Schrift,  p.  16);  he  rejected  certain 
books  which  the  ancient  Church  accepted,  and  accepted  some  which  were 
rejected  of  old  (see  Romberg,  op.  cit.,  pp.  22-23). 

*  See  Table  Talk,  pp.  2-3. 

"  See  Harnack,  op.  cit.,  7.  246;   Romberg,  op.  cit.,  p.  20. 
'  Quoted  by  Beard,  The  Hibbert  Lectures,  p.  163. 


INTERPRETATION   OF   SCRIPTURE   BY   REFORMERS     197 

Having  taken  this  preliminary  survey  of  Luther's  exe- 
getical  qualifications,  we  now  proceed  to  a  closer  acquaint- 
ance with  his  exegetical  work. 

We  notice  at  the  outset  that,  much  as  Luther  exalted 
Christ  and  the  Gospel,  the  biblical  books  on  which  he 
bestowed  the  most  labor  were  Psalms,  Genesis,  and  the 
Epistles  of  Paul.  For  the  exaltation  of  Christ  it  hardly 
mattered  to  him  what  part  of  the  Scripture  he  chose  to 
expound.  Galatians  and  Romans  were  to  him  the  purest 
Gospel,  though  they  are  in  reality  but  a  human  interpreta- 
tion of  the  Gospel.  The  Psalms  he  regarded  as  a  "short 
Bible,"  "almost  as  a  summary  of  the  whole  Bible,"  and 
Genesis  was  held  by  him  to  be  a  liher  sanctissimus }  There- 
fore, since  his  "right  touchstone"  for  testing  all  biblical 
books  was  to  observe  whether  they  witness  to  Christ,  we 
know  at  the  start  that  he  found  abundant  witness  of  this 
character  in  Genesis. 

Luther  published  a  commentary  on  the  Psalms  in  1519- 
1521.^  Erasmus  in  acknowledging  a  copy  from  the  author 
said  that  it  pleased  him  exceedingly,  and  Justus  Jonas 
declared  that  the  book  was  by  the  Holy  Spirit,^  If  this 
judgment  of  the  admiring  Jonas  was  a  true  one,  then 
Augustin's  commentary  on  the  Psalms  was  also  ex  spiritu 
sancto,   for   Luther's   work   is   fundamentally   the   same. 

*  See  Romberg,  op.  cit.,  p.  12;  Bohlau's  edition  of  Luther's  Werke, 
vol.  24. 

^  The  Dictata  super  Psalterium  were  published  in  15 13-15 16. 

^  See  Bohlau's  edition  of  Luther's  Werke,  5.  2-3.  Kostlin,  however, 
says  (see  Martin  Luther,  i.  112),  "Seine  Anmerkungen  zum  Psalter  haben 
fiir  uns  weniger  die  Bedeutung  einer  eigentlich  exegetischen  Leistung  als 
einer  Darstellung  seiner  neu  gewonnenen  dogmatischen  tjberzeugungen." 


198  THE   INTERPRETATION   OF  THE   BIBLE 

Its  most  characteristic  feature  is  its  attempt  to  refer  the 
Psalms  to  Christ.  Thus  Psalm  i  is  said  to  speak  literally 
of  Christ.  He  is  the  man  who  walked  not  in  the  counsel  of 
sinners.  The  "leaf"  that  shall  not  wither  is  Christ's 
word,  of  which  he  said  that,  though  heaven  and  earth  should 
pass  away,  it  should  not  pass  away.  Though  at  the  be- 
ginning of  his  book  ^  Luther  says  it  is  best  to  learn  the 
sense  of  Scripture  from  the  letter,  yet  when  he  comes  to 
the  words  in  Ps.  i : 

"  The  unrighteous  are  not  so, 
But  are  like  the  chaff  which  the  wind  driveth  away," 

he  quite  unnecessarily  leaves  the  letter,  and  declares  that 
the  wind  is  the  impetus  of  the  anger  of  the  Lord,  and  he 
refers  the  "chaff"  (Luther  has  "dust")  to  the  Jews.  They 
are  also  the  "sinners"  who,  the  psalmist  says,  shall  not 
stand  in  the  "council"  of  the  righteous,  i.e.,  in  the  Christian 
Church.  The  third  Psalm  is  spoken,  says  Luther,  in  the 
person  of  Christ's  assumed  humanity ;  the  fourth  is  spoken 
in  the  person  of  the  assumed  human  nature  and  is  ad- 
dressed to  the  entire  Trinity;  the  sixth  is  composed  prin- 
cipally of  words  of  Christ ;  the  eighth  concerns  Christ's 
ascension  and  glorification;  in  the  fifteenth  the  prophet 
asks  who  is  worthy  to  dwell  in  the  Church  of  Christ,  and 
it  is  the  Lord  Jesus  who  replies ;  the  twenty-fourth  prophe- 
sies that  Christ  as  Lord  of  all  will  receive  whomsoever  he 
pleases  without  respect  of  person;  the  twenty-fifth  is  a 
prayer  of  Christ  to  the  Father;    in  the  thirtieth  we  hear 

*  See  Bohlau's  edition  of  Luther's  Werke,  3.  11.     This  reference  and 
some  of  the  following  ones  are  to  the  Didata,  not  the  Opcraliones. 


INTERPRETATION   OF   SCRIPTURE   BY   REFORMERS     199 

Christ  exult  concerning  his  glorious  resurrection  from 
death  and  the  grave;  and  in  the  forty-sixth  the  Church 
praises  Christ  for  his  protection  and  for  the  extermination 
of  all  its  enemies.  This  may  suffice  to  indicate  the  most 
characteristic  feature  of  Luther's  exposition  of  the  Psalms. 
If  we  inquire  on  what  ground  Christ  is  thus  read  into  these 
ancient  Hebrew  lyrics,  these  words  from  the  author's 
Preface  may  in  part  suggest  the  answer :  "  If  the  Old  Testa- 
ment can  be  expounded  by  human  sense  without  the  New 
Testament,  I  shall  say  that  the  New  Testament  is  given  in 
vain."  ^  Thus  we  have  the  general  assumption  that  the 
Old  Testament  is  a  book  of  mysteries,  to  which  the  New 
Testament  alone  offers  a  key.  In  his  exposition  of  the 
third  Psalm  Luther  gives  us  a  striking  illustration  of  the 
sort  of  difficulty  that  led  him  to  refer  the  Psalms  to  Christ. 
In  the  fifth  verse  of  that  Psalm  are  these  words :  — 

"  I  laid  me  down  and  slept; 
I  awaked;  for  Jehovah  sustaineth  me." 

It  is  absurd,  says  Luther,  to  suppose  that  these  words  refer 
to  natural  sleep,  and  if  they  do  not,  then  of  course  they 
refer  to  the  resurrection  of  Jesus,  and  therefore  the  entire 
Psalm  is  to  be  regarded  as  spoken  by  him.^  Again,  how 
easily  Luther  reached  the  conclusion  that  any  particular 
Psalm  was  to  be  ascribed  to  Christ,  is  seen  in  the  fact  that, 
because  Christ  is  said  to  have  voiced  his  distress  on  the 
cross  in  words  from  Ps.  22,  therefore  the  entire  Psalm  was 
spoken  hy  him. 

It  is  obvious  to-day  that  any  historical  interpretation  of 

'  See  Bohlau's  edition  of  Luther's  Werke,  3.  12. 
^  Ibid.,  vol.  5,  Operationes  in  Psalmos. 


200  THE   INTERPRETATION    OF   THE   BIBLE 

the  Psalms  is  made  utterly  impossible  by  this  fundamental 
assumption.  One  might  as  well  speak  of  an  interpretation 
of  Roger  Bacon  as  historical  which  proceeded  on  the  as- 
sumption that  the  science  of  the  twentieth  century  is  to  be 
found  hidden  in  him. 

The  extremely  arbitrary  character  of  Luther's  interpre- 
tation of  details  in  the  Psalms,  due  in  part  to  the  false 
assumption  regarding  their  relation  to  Christ,  in  part  to  the 
ancient  tendency  to  find  everywhere  in  Scripture  a  profound 
sense,  may  be  briefly  illustrated.  The  poetical  designation 
of  the  eastern  sky  as  "the  womb  of  the  morning,"  in 
Ps.  no,  is  said  to  point  to  the  supernatural  birth  of  Christ, 
for  Mary  is  in  many  places  of  Scripture  called  the  "dawn" 
(Morgenrothc)  because  she  brought  in  the  true  day  and 
eternal  life.^  Unfortunately  the  interpreter  does  not  tell 
us  where  Mary  is  so  designated.  Again,  in  Ps.  67,  in  the 
words  "God,  even  our  own  God,  will  bless  us,  God  will 
bless  us,"  Luther  sees  the  Christian  Trinity.  The  first 
time  that  the  Psalm  mentions  God,  the  Father  is  meant; 
then  by  "our  God"  it  means  the  Son  who  was  made  ours 
through  the  assumption  of  the  flesh;  and  finally,  when  it 
says  "  God  shall  bless  us,"  it  speaks  of  the  Holy  Spirit.^ 
"Let  God  arise,"  cries  the  author  of  Ps.  68;  "let  his 
enemies  be  scattered!"  The  God  of  this  verse,  says 
Luther,  is  Jesus  Christ,  and  the  rising  is  his  resurrection. 
When  we  read  in  the  same  Psalm,  "He  bringcth  out  the 
prisoners  into  prosperity,"  that  means  the  fathers  whom 
Christ  brought  out  of  hell.     The  mountain  Vvhich  God 

*  See  Bohlau's  edition  of  Luther's  Werke,  vol.  i. 

*  Ibid.,  vol.  3. 


INTERPRETATION   OF   SCRIPTURE   BY   REFORMERS     20I 

hath  desired  for  a  habitation  (Ps.  68  :  i6),  which  the 
psalmist  identifies  with  the  mountain  of  Bashan,  is  said  by 
Luther  to  mean  the  humanity  of  Christ/ 

Turn  for  a  moment  to  Luther's  exposition  of  Genesis, 
which  KostHn  ^  calls  "the  most  comprehensive  and  richest 
of  his  exegetical  writings."  This,  says  Luther,  is  almost 
the  noblest  book  of  the  Old  Testament.  It  contains  more 
figures  of  Christ  and  his  kingdom  than  any  other  book. 
By  word  and  example  it  teaches  nothing  else  than  the  one 
Christ.^  Being  convinced  of  this,  Luther  makes  it  his  aim 
to  show  that  Christ  is  everywhere  taught.  He  finds  the 
Trinity  with  an  "unspeakable  and  unfathomable"  Christ 
in  the  first  verses  of  the  first  chapter ;  ^  the  ark  signifies  the 
Christian  Church,  and  the  story  of  Joseph  is  full  of  teach- 
ing about  the  kingdom  of  Christ.^ 

Strangely  enough,  in  the  midst  of  this  purely  fanciful 
exposition,  we  meet  the  great  principle  that  a  teaching  of 
Scripture  which  is  to  form  an  article  of  faith  must  be  so 
grounded  and  sure  that  "a  man  would  rest  his  life  upon  it." 
This  truth  is  still  far  in  advance  of  the  practice  of  the 
Church,  but  the  exposition  in  which  it  stands  is  thoroughly 
mediaeval. 

In  Bohlau's  critical  edition  of  Luther's  works  the  volume 
on  the  Minor  Prophets  is  said  to  show  us  Luther  at  the 
high  level  of  his  independence  as  an  interpreter,  more 
under  the  influence  of  Reuchlin  than  under  that  of  Nicolas 


*  See  last  reference. 

^  See  Martin  Luther,  sein  Leben  und  seine  Schriften,  2.  433. 
^  See  the  Bohlau  edition,  24.  710. 

*  Ibid.,  24.  29.  ^  Ibid.,  24.  176,  61; 


202  THE   INTERPRETATION   OF   THE    BIBLE 

de  Lyra.  He  sometimes  recognizes  the  connection  of 
thought,  and  sometimes  appreciates  the  historical  back- 
ground. But  still  it  is  admitted  that  he  makes  the  proph- 
ets think  and  speak  New  Testament  thought.*  This  is 
the  most  fundamental  and  all-pervasive  evil  of  Luther's 
exposition  of  the  prophets  as  of  all  his  Old  Testament 
exposition.  Note  two  or  three  instances.  In  the  last 
chapter  of  Hosea  a  new  day  is  pictured  for  Israel.  Luther 
refers  this  at  once  to  the  Christian  dispensation  and 
allegorizes  all  the  numerous  details.  Thus  when  it  is 
said  that  Israel's  beauty  shall  be  as  the  olive  tree,  this 
signifies  that  Christians  will  be  a  people  of  mercy  and  grace. 
The  good  name  of  Christians  is  indicated  when  it  is  said 
that  Israel's  smell  shall  be  as  the  smell  of  Lebanon.^ 
Jonah's  entire  experience  was  parallel  to  that  of  Christ,  and 
the  speaker  in  Mai.  3  is  said  to  be  Christ  himself.^ 

Although  Luther  as  an  expositor  was  more  largely  oc- 
cupied with  the  Old  Testament  than  with  the  New,  it  is 
obvious  that  the  spirit  of  the  New  was  more  deeply  grasped 
by  him  than  was  that  of  the  Old.  He  knew  it  by  a  pro- 
found experience  of  its  saving  truth  —  an  experience  which 
shed  something  of  its  glory  over  the  pages  of  his  translation ; 
but  his  exegesis  of  the  New  Testament  has  no  greater 
scientific  worth  than  that  of  the  Old.  It  is  marked  by 
failure  to  realize  the  historical  situation  of  a  given  text  and 
also  by  a  tendency  to  let  the  feelings  or  polemical  interests 
determine  the  sense.  Thus  "daily  bread"  in  the  Lord's 
Prayer  is  said  to  signify  the  word  of  God,  i.e.^  Jesus  Christ, 

'  Compare  Kostlin,  Martin  Lulher,  2.  433. 

^  See  the  Bohlau  edition,  vol.  13-  ^  Ibid.,  vol.  13. 


INTERPRETATION   OF   SCRIPTURE   BY   REFORMERS     203 

and  in  confirmation  of  this  view  the  language  of  John  is 
quoted,  "I  am  the  Hving  bread."  ^  This  is  plainly  an 
utter  failure  to  grasp  the  simplicity  of  the  gospel  narrative. 
There  is  no  indication  in  Luther's  words  on  the  Lord's 
Prayer  that  he  thought  of  bodily  needs  at  all  as  included 
in  the  Master's  petition  for  daily  bread.  Again,  when  any 
one  prays  from  the  heart  the  words  "  Our  Father  who  art  in 
heaven,"  he  confesses  himself  wretched  on  earth,  says 
Luther,  and  far  from  God.  But  can  that  possibly  have 
been  the  thought  of  Jesus?  Did  he  think  of  himself  as 
far  from  God  because  he  spoke  of  God  as  in  heaven? 
Did  he  not  rather  think  of  God  as  present  with  him,  and  of 
himself  as  being  for  this  reason  supremely  blessed  ? 

But  we  refrain  from  giving  further  detailed  illustration  of 
Luther's  New  Testament  exposition,  and  add  a  few  words 
by  way  of  summing  up  both  his  strength  and  his  weakness 
as  an  exegete.  His  knowledge  of  Greek  and  Hebrew, 
though  considerable  for  his  day,  was  not  sufficient  to  give  a 
distinctively  Hnguistic  value  to  his  exegetical  work.  His 
break  with  traditional  conceptions  of  the  Scriptures  and 
with  the  ancient  theology  was  not  so  deep  as  to  give  an  es- 
sentially new  character  to  his  exposition.  He  partially 
grasped  some  true  and  radical  principles,  as  the  place  of 
reason  in  the  interpretation  of  Scripture  and  the  insuffi- 
ciency of  allegory  as  a  basis  of  Christian  doctrine,  but  his 
appKcation  of  these  principles  did  not  constitute  a  marked 
feature  of  his  exegetical  work.  He  said  that  teachers 
should  take  good  heed  not  to  make  a  Moses  out  of  Christ 

*  See  (he  Bohlau  edition,  vol.  2,  Auslegung  deutsch  des  Valer  unnser 
fuer  dye  einfiUigen  leyen. 


204  THE   INTERPRETATION   OF   THE    BIBLE 

nor  to  make  a  Christ  out  of  Moses/  yet  he  himself  found 
all  fundamental  Christian  doctrines  in  Genesis,  and  pre- 
ferred the  Gospel  in  the  semi-dogmatic  form  in  which  it 
appears  in  Paul's  Epistles  rather  than  in  the  simple,  un- 
thcological  words  of  Jesus. 

Butzer  of  Strassburg,  a  younger  contemporary  of  Luther 
who  acquired  a  wide  reputation  as  a  theologian  both  on 
the  continent  and  in  England,  says  that  Luther  used  the 
Scriptures  better  and  more  skilfully  than  any  one  had  done 
for  some  hundreds  of  years.^  To  this  judgment  we  readily 
assent.  His  exposition  does  mark  progress  as  compared 
with  that  of  the  mediaeval  period,  notably  in  its  good  sense 
and  practical  character,  but  the  best,  most  original  ele- 
ments in  his  views  of  Scripture  are  found  throughout  his 
writings  as  almost  wholly  unapplied  truths. 

By  the  side  of  Luther  stood  Melanchthon,  younger  by 
fourteen  years,  who,  until  he  came  under  the  influence  of 
the  great  reformer,  was  a  Humanist  pure  and  simple.  His 
first  publication  was  a  Greek  grammar  (1518),  his  most 
important  one  the  Loci  Communes  (1521),  "an  invincible 
book,"  according  to  Luther,  and  worthy  of  reception  into 
the  canon.^  It  follows  from  this  judgment  that  Melanch- 
thon's  conception  of  Christianity  and  his  principles  of 
exegesis  were  not  widely  different  from  Luther's. 

In  Melanchthon,  as  in  Luther,  there  was  a  conspicu- 
ous contrast  between  exegetical  principles  and  exegetical 
practice.     In  principle  he  advocated  a  grammatical  inter- 

•  See  Table  Talk,  p.  289. 

'  See  Baum,  Capita  und  Butzer  Strasshurgs  Reformatoren. 
'  See  Sell,  Philip  Melanchthonin  Schrijten  des  Vereinsfiir  Reforniations- 
geschichtc,  No.  56. 


INTERPRETATION   OF   SCRIPTURE   BY   REFORMERS     205 

pretation  and  was  opposed  to  any  sense  save  the  literal. 
What  he  was  in  practice  we  can  learn  from  the  Loci.'^ 
Like  Luther,  he  made  a  Christian  book  out  of  the  Old 
Testament,  and  was  always  controlled,  or  at  least  greatly  ' 
influenced,  in  his  exposition  by  the  traditional  doctrines 
of  the  Church.  Thus,  for  example,  when  he  advances 
Scripture  proof  of  the  resurrection  of  the  dead  and  their 
subsequent  state,  he  gives  three  passages  from  the  New 
Testament  and  seventeen  from  the  Old.^  When  discuss- 
ing the  baptism  of  infants,  he  declares  that  there  is  no 
salvation  outside  the  Church,^  the  reason  being  that  outside 
the  Church  there  is  neither  word  nor  sacrament,  as  though 
the  sacraments  were  to  be  placed  on  a  level  with  the  Bible, 
and  as  though  the  Bible  and  sacraments  were  absolutely 
necessary  to  salvation.  The  law  was  not  given  to  Israel, 
he  says,  that  the  people  might  be  righteous  in  the  sight  of 
God,  but  to  separate  Israel  from  other  peoples,  and /or  the 
preaching  of  Christ.* 

In  the  Lord's  Prayer,  the  words  "who  art  in  heaven," 
mean,  says  Melanchthon,  that  God  is  everywhere  truly 
present,  and  the  petition  "Forgive  us  our  debts"  teaches 
that  in  every  prayer  that  faith  is  to  be  exhibited  which 
believes  the  remission  of  sins  and  apprehends  Christ  as 
mediator  and  intercessor,  so  that  we  may  know  that  we 
draw  near  to  the  Father  through  this  high  priest  and  are 

*  My  references  are  to  the  edition  of  1535. 

^  See  the  chapter  De  resurrectione  mortitornm. 

^"Non  est  autem  extra  ecclesiam  salus,  ubi  nee  verbum,  nee  sacra- 
mentum  est." 

*  See  under  De  discrimine  veteris  et  novi  test  amen  ti. 


206  THE   INTERPRETATION    OF   THE    BIBLE 

heard  on  account  of  him/  This  exegesis  is  a  perfect  illus- 
tration of  the  subjection  of  Scripture  to  traditional  doctrine. 
It  is  true  that  the  text  is  not  allegorized,  but  its  plain  sense 
is  as  completely  ignored  as  it  could  be  by  the  most  refined 
allegorization. 

Melanchthon,  then,  both  in  exegetical  principle  and  prac- 
tice, stands  by  the  side  of  Luther.  Though  more  deeply 
influenced  by  Humanism  than  he,  and  in  turn  contributing 
more  to  the  study  of  Greek,^  both  as  expositors  of  Scripture 
were  irresistibly  swept  along  by  the  deep  exegetical  and 
theological  current  flowing  down  from  past  centuries.  In 
one  point  Melanchthon  was  plainly  far  superior  to  Luther. 
His  exegesis  is  somewhat  less  dogmatic.  Kant's  judgment 
of  the  reformers  in  their  attitude  toward  the  Bible  is  less 
fitly  applied  to  Melanchthon  than  to  Luther.  Their  sup- 
posed freedom  of  investigation  he  characterizes  as  follows : 
"  Draw  your  conclusions  from  the  Bible,  but  take  care  that 
you  do  not  discover  anything  in  the  Bible  except  what  we 
find  there."  ^  "A  man,"  says  Luther,  "must  be  able  to 
affirm,  I  know  for  certain  that  what  I  teach  is  the  only  word 
of  God,  and  whatsoever  agrees  not  with  this  doctrine  is 
altogether  false  and  spun  by  the  devil."  *  But  when  a 
man  reaches  this  point,  which  Melanchthon    never  did 

'  "Haec  petitio  docet  semper  in  omni  precatione  fidem  adhibendam 
esse  quae  credat  remissionem  et  apprehendat  Christum  mediatorem  et  in- 
terpellatorem,  ut  sciamus  nos  accedere  ad  patrem  per  hunc  pontificem  et 
propter  eum  exaudiri." 

^  See  Schaff-Herzog,  Encyclopedia  of  Religious  Knowledge,  sub  "  Me- 
lancthon." 

^  Quoted  by  Lilly,  Renaissance  Types. 

*  See  Table  Talk,  p.  i8. 


INTERPRETATION   OF   SCRIPTURE   BY   REFORMERS     207 

reach,  there  is  little  probability  that  he  will  ever  advance 
further  in  his  knowledge  of  Scripture. 

Zwingli  (1484-1531),  the  reformer  of  Zurich,  was  a  Hu- 
manist ^  like  Melanchthon,  but  with  a  strong  practical  bias. 
He  began  Greek  at  the  age  of  twenty-nine,  that  he  might 
understand  the  teaching  of  Christ,^  but  it  was  not  the  study 
of  the  Bible  that  made  him  a  reformer.  It  was  the  cor- 
ruption of  his  countrymen  by  foreign  gold.^  He  had  some 
knowledge  of  Hebrew,  and  was  so  impressed  with  its  value 
that  he  offered  to  instruct  the  youth  of  Zurich  who  should 
first  become  acquainted  with  the  elements  of  the  language.* 
And  yet  it  does  not  appear  that  Zwingli's  knowledge  of 
Greek  and  Hebrew  gave  any  distinctive  and  valuable 
quality  to  his  exegesis.  Like  Wyclif,  he  preached  the  New 
Testament  rather  than  the  Old,  and,  unlike  Luther,  he  did 
not  treat  the  Epistles  of  Paul  as  the  purest  gospel.^  His 
exposition  was  less  completely  dominated  by  the  past  than 
was  Luther's.  The  Spirit  of  God,  he  said,  is  so  abundant 
in  the  Scriptures  that  every  humble  reader,  without  the 
aid  of  human  authorities,  can  learn  its  teaching.^  Like 
John  Knox,  Zwingli  was  a  preacher  rather  than  a  writer 
of  books,  and  partly  for  that  reason  his  exegesis  was  not  an 
important  force  beyond  his  own  Swiss  canton. 

'  On  Zwingli's  education,  see  Stahelin,  Htddreich  Zwingli,  in  Schriften 
des  Vereins  filr  Reformations geschichte,  No.  3. 

^  See  Gieseler,  Kirchen geschichte,  3.  i.  135. 

'  See  Pollard  in  Cambridge  Modern  History,  vol.  II. 

*  See  Eine  Kiirze  Erkldrung  des  christlichen  Glaubens  in  Christoffel's 
Huldreich  Zwingli. 

^  See,  e.g.,  Jackson,  Selected  Works  of  H.  Zwingli,  p.  106. 

^  See  Christoffel,  Huldreich  Zwingli,  chapter  i. 


/ 


2o8  THE   INTERPRETATION    OF   THE    BIBLE 

Not  SO  with  the  Genevan  reformer  John  Cal.yin  (1509- 
1564).  He  was  not  only  the  theologian  of  his  century,  buti 
also  the  expositor.  His  exegetical  writings  became  the 
standard  not  only  in  Switzerland,  but  also  in  the  Reformed 
Churches  of  Germany,  in  England,  Scotland,  and  in  other 
places.*  To  him  alone  among  his  contemporaries  was 
the  honor  to  be  accorded  that  after  three  centuries 
his  entire  expository  writings  should  be  translated  into 
English. 

In  the  Dedicatory  Epistle  of  the  commentary  on  Romans, 
Calvin  tells  us  what  he  and  Grynseus,  his  tutor  in  Hebrew  in 
Basel,  agreed  was  the  most  excellent  quality  in  an  inter- 
preter, namely,  brevity  combined  w^ith  clearness.  Now 
while  one  wdll  readily  allow  that  these  qualities  are  ex- 
cellent, one  can  scarcely  regard  them  as  the  most  excellent. 
For  both  might  be  possessed  by  an  interpreter  w^hose 
knowledge  was  quite  inadequate,  or  by  one  who  held  such 
views  of  the  origin  and  purpose  of  Scripture  as  made  it 
impossible  for  him  ever  to  give  a  true  interpretation. 
Indeed,  we  think  that  even  Calvin  himself  possessed 
exegetical  qualifications  of  vastly  greater  importance  than 
the  ability  to  write  clearly,  we  will  not  say  briefly,  for  his 
commentary  on  Isaiah  and  that  on  Jeremiah  extends  to 
four  volumes,  while  those  on  Psalms  and  the  Minor  Proph- 
ets have  each  five  volumes.  But  though  Calvin  sadly 
missed  the  goal  of  brevity,  he  attained  something  more 

'  In  this  connection  it  is  interesting  to  note  the  cosmopolitan  charac- 
ter of  the  dedications  of  Calvin's  exegetical  writings.  Galatians  was 
dedicated  to  the  Duke  of  Wirtemberg,  Genesis  to  the  Duke  of  Vendome, 
Isaiah  to  Edward  VI  of  England,  the  Minor  Prophets  to  Gustavus  of 
Sweden,  etc. 


INTERPRETATION   OF  SCRIPTURE   BY  REFORMERS 


209 


desirable.  For  the  first  time  in  a  thousand  years  he  gave  a 
conspicuous  example  of  non- allegorical  exposition.  One 
must  go  back  to  the  best  work  of  the  school  of  Antioch  to 
find  so  complete  a  rejection  of  the  method  of  Philo  as  is 
furnished  by  Calvin.  Allegorical  interpretations  which 
had  been  put  forth  in  the  early  Church  and  indorsed  by 
illustrious  expositors  in  all  the  subsequent  centuries,  like 
the  interpretation  of  Noah's  ark  and  the  seamless  garment 
of  Christ,  are  cast  aside  as  rubbish.  This  fact  alone  gives 
an  abiding  and  distinguished  honor  to  Calvin's  exegetical 
work.  What  led  him  to  reject  allegorical  interpretation 
as  something  peculiarly  satanic,^  whether  it  was  his  legal 
training  at  Orleans  and  Bourges  or  his  native  judgment, 
it  is  not  possible  to  say,  but  the  fact  is  clear  and  is  the  most 
striking  feature  of  his  interpretation. 

Was  it  Calvin's  repugnance  to  allegorical  interpretation 
which  led  him  to  read  biblical  poetry  as  prose?  W^as  it 
his  deep  conviction  of  the  importance  of  holding  to  the 
literal  sense  of  Scripture  that  made  him  blind  to  the 
character  of  so  much  of  the  sacred  text?  This  seems 
not  improbable.  In  the  recoil  from  the  unprofitableness 
of  allegory,  it  was  natural  to  go  to  an  extreme  position  in 
regard  to  literalness.  At  any  rate,  to  such  an  extreme 
Calvin  did  go,  and  this  insistence  on  the  literal  sense, 
especially  in  the  explanation  of  the  Old  Testament,  is 
a  marked  weakness  of  his  interpretation.  Thus,  for 
example,  he  takes  the  stories  of  the  early  chapters  of  Gen- 
esis as  pure  history.     Satan  entered  into  the  serpent  that 

'  See    Commentary  on   Genesis,    i.    114.     All    references   to    Calvin's 
commentaries  are  to  the  edition  of  the  Calvin  Translation  Society. 
p 


210  THE   INTERPRETATION   OF   THE   BIBLE 

tempted  Eve,  and  caused  it  to  speak  a  human  language.* 
Lions,  wolves,  and  tigers  meekly  entered  Noah's  ark  with 
lambs.^  And  to  pass  to  the  New  Testament  for  another 
illustration,  the  words  of  Mark,  that  the  heavens  were 
opened  at  the  baptism  of  Jesus,  can  have,  says  Calvin, 
no  other  meaning  than  that  a  cleft  was  made  iji  the  visible 
heavens  so  that  John  could  see  something  beyond  the  moon 
and  the  stars.^ 

This  failure  to  distinguish  between  prose  and  poetry, 
between  folk-lore  of  hoary  antiquity  and  the  record  of 
current  events,  was  perhaps  made  more  easy  for  Calvin 
by  his  view  of  inspiration.  This  was  essentially  the  old 
orthodox  view,  according  to  which  the  evangelists  were  the 
"clerks"  of  the  Holy  Spirit  and  wrote  what  he  dictated.^ 
Even  the  Roman  Pilate  in  preparing  an  inscription  for  the 
cross  wrote  what  was  dictated  to  him  by  God,  and  knew 
not  the  meaning  of  what  he  wrote.^  This  conception  of 
the  origin  of  sacred  writings,  which  exhibits  none  of  the 
freedom  which  often  marked  Luther's  utterances  on  the 
subject,  would  naturally  strengthen  the  tendency  to  reduce 
them  to  one  common  level.  But  however  it  was  brought 
about,  Calvin  combined  with  the  singular  merit  of  reject- 
ing the  time-honored  principle  of  allegory  an  extreme 
insistence  on  the  letter,  which,  at  times,  made  his  exposi- 
tions as  worthless  as  though  he  had  been  of  the  school  of 
Oiigen. 

'  Commentary  on  Genesis,  i.  139.  *  Op.  cit.,  1.  269. 

'  See  the  Com?nentary  on  a  Harmony  of  the  Evangelists  Matthew,  Mark, 
and  Luke,  i.  203. 

*  See  op.  cit.,  1.  127.  *  See  op.  cit.,  1.  227, 


INTERPRETATION  OF  SCRIPTURE  BY  REFORMERS     211 

The  fact  that  Calvin  often  interpreted  poetiy  as  though 
it  were  prose  may  be  considered  as  an  illustration  of  a 
broader  fact,  viz.,  a  lack  of  the  historical  sense  which  is 
variously  manifested  throughout  his  writings.  It  is  true 
that  his  work  is  worthy  of  some  praise  even  in  this  respect. 
It  is  to  his  credit  that  he  passed  lightly  over  the  titles  of  the 
Psalms,  out  of  which  Augustin  and  a  multitude  of  later 
writers  had  juggled  impossible  meanings,^  and  to  his  credit 
also  that  he  inferred  from  the  style  and  manner  of  Hebrews 
that  Paul  could  not  have  written  it.^  It  is  likewise  to  the 
praise  of  his  exegetical  sense  that  he  immensely  reduced 
the  number  of  prophetic  psalms.  But  there  are  certain 
other  facts  which  one  must  not  overlook.  Is  there  not 
manifested  a  serious  lack  of  historical  insight  when  Calvin 
declares,  for  example,  that  in  the  Psalms  there  is  nothing 
wanting  which  relates  to  the  knowledge  of  eternal  salva- 
tion,^ and  when  he  teaches  in  his  Catechism  that  the  Deca- 
logue is  the  rule  of  life  given  us  of  God  ?  *  Historically 
considered,  the  Decalogue  is  a  rule  given  to  the  Jews,  and 
from  the  Christian  point  of  view  it  is  obsolete  as  a  standard, 
its  truth  being  taken  up  and  expressed  in  an  entirely 
different  manner  in  the  revelation  of  Jesus.  Lack  of 
historical  appreciation  is  seen  also  in  the  sweeping  declara- 
tion that  the  Prophets  derived  their  doctrines  from  the 
Law,  and  were  the  Law's  interpreters.^  It  is  now  recog- 
nized, on  the  contrary,  that  both  in  matter  and  in  manner 

*  See,  e.g.,  Commentary  on  the  Psalms,  i.  93. 

^  See  Commentary  on  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  p.  35. 
^  See  Commentary  on  the  Psalms,  vol.  i,  Preface. 

*  See  Tracts,  2.  56. 

^  See  Commentary  on  Isaiah,  vol.  i,  Preface, 


212         THE   INTERPRETATION   OF  THE   BIBLE 

the  prophetic  message  affords  a  striking  contrast  to  the 
legislation  of  the  Pentateuch.  The  Prophets  are  to  be 
classed  with  the  Gospel  rather  than  with  the  Law. 

To  mention  yet  one  more  illustration  of  the  point  in  hand. 
The  Holy  Spirit,  says  Calvin,  appears  purposely  to  have 
regulated  the  style  of  the  evangelists  in  such  a  manner 
that  they  all  wrote  one  and  the  same  history,  with  the  most 
perfect  agreement,  but  in  different  ways.^  Now  without 
marvelling  that  it  was  possible  for  Calvin  to  make  this 
statement,  —  for  we  must  remember  the  age  in  which  he 
lived,  —  we  may  yet  safely  affirm  that  it  reveals  a  lack  of 
critical  sense.  When  an  honest  man,  after  a  careful  study 
of  the  first  three  evangelists,  declares  that  they  write  "with 
the  most  perfect  agreement,"  it  is  obvious  that  he  does  not 
understand  that  whereof  he  speaks.  There  are  facts,  and 
many  of  them,  which  he  does  not  see. 

We  pass  now  to  what  we  regard  as  the  most  conspicuous 
and  fatal  defect  in  Calvin's  exegesis,  viz.,  its  subjection  of 
Scripture  to  the  authority  of  the  traditional  orthodox 
dogmas.  In  the  details  of  much  of  his  exegesis,  Calvin 
was  independent.  He  was  the  most  striking  contrast  which 
his  generation  offered  to  the  catenists  of  earlier  times; 
yet  in  the  main  features  of  his  theology,  he  held  what  the 
Church  of  the  fourth  century  had  held,  and  in  supporting 
this  out  of  Scripture  he  became  an  arbitrary  manipulator 
of  texts.  In  this  he  went  no  further  than  some  of  his  con- 
temporaries, no  further  than  Athanasius  and  Augustin  had 
gone.  But  we  are  not  here  concerned  to  judge  the  exegesis 
of  Calvin  by  the  standard  of  the  sixteenth  century ;  we  are 

*  See  Commentary  on  a  Harmony,  etc.,  i.  127. 


u 


INTERPRETATION   OF   SCRIPTURE   BY   REFORMERS 


213 


looking  at  it  in  the  light  of  the  present,  for  the  benefit  of 
the  present,  and  not  for  the  condemnation  of  the  past. 
In  this  light  we  hold  that  the  exegesis  of  Calvin  was  fatally 
defective  in  that  it  subordinated  Scripture  to  the  dogmas 
of  the  Church.  As  Calvin  said  of  Luther  that  he  was  not 
very  desirous  to  get  the  sense  of  the  words  or  the  events  of 
the  history  in  his  exegesis  of  Scripture,^  so  we  may  say  of 
Calvin  that  he  was  much  too  desirous  to  get  from  Scripture 
the  doctrines  he  had  been  taught  at  Paris  or  had  later 
learned  from  the  writings  of  Augustin. 

In  illustration  of  this  momentous  feature  of  Calvin's 
exegesis  we  shall  confine  ourselves  to  a  single  point,  viz.,  to 
his  use  of  Scripture  in  support  of  his  doctrine  of  the  person 
of  Christ,  and  we  will  consider  his  argument  as  set  forth 
in  the  Institutes,  the  edition  of  1559,  the  maturest  product 
of  his  thought.  In  this  work  he  cites  and  discusses  eight 
passages  from  the  Old  Testament  and  six  from  the  New  — 
as  though  the  Old  Testament  which  merely  foreshadowed 
the  Messiah  were  a  more  important  source  of  the  doctrine 
of  Christ's  person  than  the  New  in  which  he  is  revealed  I 
He  says  in  regard  to  the  Old  Testament  proof  that  he 
omits  "testimonies  innumerable,"  which  remark  shows 
that  he,  as  well  as  Luther,  found  Christ  everywhere  in  the 
ancient  Scriptures.  It  is  highly  significant  that  his  New 
Testament  proof  contains  no  word  of  Jesus.  To  the  teach- 
ing of  him  who  said,  "No  one  knoweth  the  Son  save  the 
Father";  to  him  who  said,  "In  this  place  is  one  greater 
than  the  temple,"  to  this  one  no  appeal  is  made.  Calvin 
finds  proof  in  the  ancient  story  that  tells  how  Jacob  wrestled 

*  See  Henry,  Das  Leben  Johann  Calvins,  i.  345. 


214  THE    INTERPRETATION   OF   THE   BIBLE 

with  an  angel,  but  none  in  what  Jesus  Christ  said  of 
himself ! 

It  is  not  necessary  to  consider  in  detail  all  the  eight  Old 
Testament  passages  which  Calvin  uses  to  prove  that  Christ 
is  "eternal  God."  We  will  notice  only  the  first  four  and 
in  the  order  in  which  he  takes  them  up.  He  begins  his 
demonstration  with  Ps.  45  :  6.*  He  regards  this  Psalm 
as  addressed  to  the  Messiah  on  the  ground  that  the 
title  "God"  is  never  given  to  a  creature  without  some 
qualifying  word.  But  this  statement  is  refuted  by  Ps. 
82,  which  Jesus  quoted  in  John  10:35  in  his  refutation 
of  the  charge  of  blasphemy.  Again,  Calvin  says  of  this 
same  verse  ^  that  "no  passage  of  Scripture  erects  an 
eternal  throne  for  a  creature,"  but  this  passage  erects  an 
eternal  throne,  and  therefore  the  one  for  whom  it  is  erected 
must  be  God.  This  statement  of  his,  however,  is  clearly 
refuted  by  Scripture,  for  God  directed  Nathan  to  say  to 
David,  "Thy  throne  shall  be  established /(9r  ever'^  (2  Sam. 
7  :  16),  and  of  the  redeemed  it  is  said,  that  they  shall  share 
the  Lord's  throne  unto  the  ages  of  ages  (Rev.  22:5). 

Finally,  it  is  to  be  noted  that  Calvin  —  and  how  many 
have  followed  him  to  this  very  day! — snatched  a  single 
verse  out  of  an  ancient  lyric  and  applied  it  in  a  way  totally 
inconsistent  with  the  greater  part  of  the  song.  If  the  sixth 
verse  is  addressed  to  the  Messiah  and  proves  that  he  is 

'  See  Institutes,  i.  13.  9. 

2  "  Thy  throne,  O  God,  is  for  ever  and  ever; 

A  sceptre  of  equity  is  the  sceptre  of  thy  kingdom." 

As  this  verse  is  translated  by  recent  O.  T.  scholars  (e.g.,  Briggs 
Cheyne,  Duhm),  the  address  on  which  Calvin  built  disappears  entirely. 


INTERPRETATION   OF   SCRIPTURE   BY   REFORMERS    21 5 

"eternal  God,"  then  to  him  we  must  apply  also  the 
words :  — 

"  All  thy  garments  smell  of  myrrh  and  aloes  and  cassia; 
Out  of  ivory  palaces  stringed  instruments  have  made  thee  glad. 
Kings'  daughters  are  among  thy  honorable  women : 
At  thy  right  hand  doth  stand  the  queen  in  gold  of  Ophir." 

And  a  little  later  a  king's  daughter,  whose  splendid  cloth- 
ing is  described,  is  brought  as  bride  into  the  king's  palace. 
If  all  this,  according  to  a  natural  exegesis,  has  no  applica- 
tion to  Jesus,  then  we  should  hesitate  to  find  in  any  verse 
of  the  Psalm  a  dogmatic  teaching  in  regard  to  him. 

Calvin's  second  text  is  Is.  9:6*:  "His  name  shall  be 
called  Wonderful,  Counsellor,  Mighty  God."  Calvin 
appeals  only  to  the  thought  of  power  in  the  last  of  these 
names.  "Supreme  power,"  he  says,  "is  the  prerogative 
of  God  alone,  and  the  fact  that  such  power  is  ascribed  to 
Christ  proves  that  he  is  God."  Now  the  interpreter 
certainly  ought  to  have  noticed  that  the  prophet  said 
"mighty,"  not  almighty.  He  ought  also  to  have  noticed 
the  next  title,  "Everlasting  Father.''^  According  to  the 
New  Testament,  Jesus  cannot  be  called  the  "Everlasting 
Father,'"  and  this  impossibility  ought  to  have  restrained 
the  interpreter  from  the  dangerous  business  of  using 
poetical  language  as  though  it  were  the  language  of  tech- 
nical theology. 

The  third  text,  Jer.  23 : 6,  is  said  to  be  so  plain  that 
nothing  plainer  can  be  required.^  Here  the  desired  king  is 
called  "Jehovah  our  righteousness,"  from  which  it  is 
inferred  that  he  is  "the  one  eternal  God."     But  to  argue 

'  See  Institutes,  i.  13.  9.  ^  Ibid.,  i.  13.9. 


2l6  THE   INTERPRETATION   OF  THE    BIBLE 

thus  is  certainly  to  walk  in  slippery  places.  Even  the 
translation  of  the  two  Hebrew  words  in  question  is  uncer- 
tain. They  may  be  rendered  "Jehovah  is  our  righteous- 
ness,"^ in  which  case  they  are  no  longer  at  all  applicable 
to  the  purpose  of  Calvin.  Moreover,  even  if  we  translate 
with  him,  we  cannot  draw  his  conclusion,  for  if  Jerusalem 
could  be  called  by  the  name  of  Jehovah  because  of  his 
presence  in  Jerusalem  (see  Ezek.  48  :  35),  surely  the 
Messiah  might  be  called  by  his  name  for  the  same  reason. 

The  last  Old  Testament  text  to  be  considered  is  Judg. 
13  :  2-25,  the  story  of  Manoah  and  his  wife  who  beheld 
an  angel.  The  interpreter  seems  to  infer  that,  since  the 
angel  disappeared  in  the  flame  of  the  sacrifice  which  was 
offered  to  Jehovah,  therefore  he  himself  was  Jehovah.^ 
But  no  reason  is  given  why  this  mode  of  disappearance 
proves  such  a  stupendous  truth.  Surely  the  fact  that  the 
angel  vanished  in  the  flame  of  the  offering  is  no  proof  that 
he  regarded  the  offering  as  made  to  himself.  The  angel 
refused  to  give  his  name,  but  it  cannot  be  thence  inferred 
that  his  name  was  Jehovah.  It  is  easy  to  conceive  of  other 
reasons  for  the  desire  to  keep  his  name  secret.^ 

We  turn  now  to  Calvin's  New  Testament  argument.* 
Of  his  six  texts,  three  should  have  been  thrown  out  at  once 
as  unavailable  because  of  their  obscurity.^     It  was  as  much 

*  So  rendered  by  Driver,  The  Book  of  the  Prophet  Jeremiah,  1906. 

'See  Institutes,  i.  13.  9. 

'  The  other  O.  T.  passages  used  to  prove  the  deity  of  Christ  are  Gen. 
32:22-32;   Zech.  2:3-5;   13-25:9;   Mai.  3.  I. 

^  See  Institutes,  1.  13.  11.. 

'  These  are  Rom.  9 : 5,  which,  grammatically,  may  refer  to  God  as 
well  as  to  Christ;  i  Tim.  3:16,  where  the  best  Greek  text  has  not  the 
word  "God";   and  Acts  20:28,  which  is  uncertain  in  two  points. 


INTERPRETATION   OF   SCRIPTURE   BY   REFORMERS    21 7 

the  duty  of  an  interpreter  in  the  sixteenth  century  as  it  is 
now  to  be  sure  that  he  had  clear  foundations  for  great 
doctrines.  Calvin's  fourth  text  was  the  latter  part  of  i 
John  5:20,  "This  is  the  true  God  and  eternal  life"; 
but  who  is  "this"?  Modern  scholars  refer  it  to  God,  not 
to  Christ.  It  seems  almost  impossible  to  suppose  that 
Calvin  did  not  see  the  doubtfulness  of  the  reference  to 
Christ,  but  if  he  saw  it,  it  was  not  right  that  he  should  use 
the  passage  as  he  did,  and  it  is  safe  to  say  that  he  would  not 
have  so  used  it  had  he  come  to  it  without  a  previous  and 
final  acceptance  of  the  system  of  doctrine  of  the  early 
Church.  His  two  remaining  texts  are  the  exclamation  of 
Thomas  when  he  saw  the  risen  Saviour  (John  20 :  28) 
and  Phil.  2 : 6.  That  these  famous  passages  appear  to 
give  some  support  to  the  traditional  doctrine  cannot  be 
denied ;  and  as  we  are  concerned  here  simply  with  the 
exegesis  of  Calvin,  not  at  all  with  the  absolute  truth  or 
error  of  his  views,  we  will  not  enter  into  a  criticism  of  his 
use  of  these  texts.  Even  if  one  wholly  approves  of  his 
explanation  of  them,  his  biblical  argument  as  a  whole, 
which  has  been  reviewed,  abundantly  confirms  the  assertion 
that  his  radical  failing  as  an  exegete  was  his  subjection  of 
Scripture  to  the  dogmas  of  the  Church. 

It  may  be  added  at  this  point  that  Calvin's  use  of  all  these 
fourteen  texts  is  strictly  as  texts,  as  isolated  utterances, 
without  the  slightest  reference  to  their  large  background  of 
individual  or  national  thought  and  life.  Paul's  word  in  the 
letter  to  the  Philippians  is  not  explained  out  of  a  compre- 
hensive study  of  Paul's  conception  of  Jesus,  neither  are  the 
Old  Testament  passages  interpreted  in  connection  with  the 


2l8  THE   INTERPRETATION   OF   THE    BIBLE 

habitual  views  of  the  times  in  which  they  originated. 
From  the  point  of  view  of  the  present  day,  this  proof-text 
method  is  quite  unhistorical.  It  is  easy  to  believe  that  a 
broad  study  of  the  same  fourteen  texts  would  lead  to  a 
conclusion  quite  the  opposite  of  Calvin's. 

Finally,  there  is  another  point  that  ought  not  to  be  for- 
gotten. As  a  man  trained  in  law,  Calvin  knew  well  the 
importance  of  looking  at  both  sides  of  a  case.  Any  student 
of  common  intelligence  recognizes  that,  as  regards  the 
establishment  of  many  doctrines  of  the  Church,  there  are 
two  sides  to  the  biblical  evidence.  An  interpreter,  there- 
fore, who  explains  certain  selected  biblical  texts  as  though 
they  constituted  the  sum  of  the  evidence,  who  virtually 
suppresses  more  or  less  evidence  that  bears  on  the  case, 
though  he  may  not  be  dishonest,  is  surely  disqualified  for 
the  high  business  of  interpretation.  That  is  what  Calvin 
has  done  in  the  case  of  the  doctrine  that  we  chose  to 
illustrate  his  exegesis.  He  has  presented  only  one  side 
of  the  evidence,  and  has  presented  it  as  though  it  were  all. 
That  is  an  easily  besetting  sin  of  every  dogmatic  inter- 
preter. 

It  has  often  been  remarked  that  the  Reformers  opposed 
to  the  infallibility  of  the  Pope  the  infallibility  of  the  Scrip- 
tures,^ but  this  statement  should  be  qualified.  To  the 
infallibility  of  the  Pope  and  a  corrupted  Church  they 
opposed  the  Scriptures  as  infallibly  interpreted  and  cast 

'  See,  e.g.,  Pollard  in  the  Cavibridge  Modern  History,  vol.  II,  and 
Guizot,  St.  Louis  and  Calvin,  p.  182.  Guizot  says,  "Calvin's  special 
work  was  to  replace  the  authority  and  infallibility  of  the  Church  by  the 
authority  and  infallibility  of  the  sacred  monument  of  divine  revelation, 
i.e.  to  put  the  Bible  in  the  place  of  the  Pope." 


INTERPRETATION   OF   SCRIPTURE   BY   REFORMERS 


219 


into  a  system  of  doctrine  by  the  early  Church.  They  never 
trusted  themselves  wholly  to  the  Scriptures.  They  used 
it  triumphantly  against  the  abuses  of  the  later  Church,  but 
always  read  it  in  the  light  of  the  theology  of  the  early 
Church.^  Of  this  exegetical  error  Calvin's  writings  afford 
by  far  the  most  disastrous  example  of  the  last  three  cen- 
turies. 

We  have  already  had  occasion  to  notice  that  Humanism 
in  England  at  the  beginning  of  the  sixteenth  century  was 
distinctly  religious.  It  gave  promise  of  a  new  and  better 
interpretation  of  Scripture  by  EngHsh  scholars.  This 
promise,  however,  was  not  signally  fulfilled.  For  though 
the  sixteenth  century  saw  an  extensive  transformation  of 
the  Church  in  England  in  the  rise  of  Puritanism,  though  it 
saw  there  the  first  circulation  of  the  Bible  in  the  EngHsh 
tongue,  and  produced  a  number  of  eminent  churchmen, 
it  produced  no  original  interpreter.  There  was  no  strong 
inner  force  in  the  English  Church  proceeding  from  a  fresh 
contact  with  the  truth  of  Scripture.  Its  interpretation  of 
the  Bible  came  from  the  continent.  Tyndale  (i 484-1 536) 
was  a  Wittenberg  student.  The  Matthews  Bible  (1537) 
of  John  Rogers  based  its  Prefaces  and  Notes  on  those  of 
Luther's  Bible. ^    Theologians  were  sought  and  received 

1  The  testimony  of  Latimer  (f  1555)  shows  that  an  Englishman  could 
be  a  reformer  without  a  consciousness  of  any  break  with  the  patristic 
exposition  of  Scripture.  He  said,  "I  have  never  preached  anything 
contrary  to  the  truth,  or  contrary  to  the  decrees  of  the  Fathers,  nor,  as  far 
as  I  know,  contrary  to  the  Catholic  faith."  Quoted  by  TuUoch,  Luther 
and  other  Leaders  of  the  Reformation. 

^  See  Strype,  Memorials  of  Cranmer,  i.  117. 


220  THE    INTERPRETATION    OF   THE   BIBLE 

from  abroad.^  The  most  popular  commentaries,  general 
theological  works,  and  even  homilies  were  by  foreign  writers.^ 
True,  the  religious  and  political  conditions  under  Henry 
VIII  and  Mary  were  more  favorable  to  the  development 
of  martyrs  than  of  scholars,  and  then  the  immense  fame 
and  authority  of  Luther  and  Calvin  as  theological  teachers 
might,  for  a  time,  check  rather  than  stimulate  original 
exegetical  work;  but  however  one  may  explain  the  fact, 
its  existence  is  obvious,  and  we  shall  not  stop  long  for  its 
illustration.  We  glance  only  at  some  of  the  leading  biblical 
writers.  Myles  Coverdale  (1488-1569),  whose  translation 
of  the  Bible  was  published  in  1535,  only  a  year  later  than 
the  completed  translation  of  Luther,  and  who,  like  Luther, 
prized  God's  "unoutspeakable  gift,"  ^  gave  an  exposition 
of  Ps.  23  in  which  the  simple  sense  is  well-nigh  lost. 
Thus  the  shepherd  of  the  Psalm  is  Christ,  and  the  shep- 
herd's voice  is  the  holy  Gospel.  David  is  said  to  give  thanks 
to  God  in  this  Psalm  for  his  principal  benefit,  even  the 
preaching  of  his  dear  and  holy  word.^  Cranmer  (1489- 
1556),  whom  his  seventeenth  century  biographer  calls  a 
"great  scripturist,"  ^  was  such  in  an  indirect  rather  than 

'  As  Butzer  and  Fagius  who  were  called  to  Cambridge,  Peter  Mar- 
tyr, Ochino,  and  others.  Melanchthon  was  four  times  invited  to  England, 
but  always  declined.     See  Schaff,  The  Creeds  of  Christendom,  i.  600. 

*  On  Calvin's  influence  in  England,  see  Fisher,  History  of  the  Christian 
Church,  p.  372;  Schaff,  The  Creeds  of  Christendont,  i.  608.  Strype, 
Annals  of  the  Reformation,  2.  2,  regarding  Bullinger's  Decades,  translated 
in  1577. 

^  See  Works,  edited  by  George  Pearson,  p.  298. 

*  See  op.  cit.,  p.  282  f.  Coverdale  translated  the  fides  antiquissima  el 
vera  religio  of  Bullinger,  which  did  not  give  him  a  very  high  ideal  of  inter- 
pretation. 

'  See  Strype's  Memorials  of  Cranmer,  i.  637. 


INTERPRETATION    OF   SCRIPTURE    BY   REFORMERS    221 

direct  manner,  for  though  he  labored  with  success  for  the 
publication  of  the  Bible  in  English  and  for  its  more  thor- 
ough study  at  the  universities,  he  made  no  contribution  to 
the  exposition  of  Scripture.^  The  first  valuable  discussion 
and  defence  of  the  view  that  the  Bible  is  to  be  taken  accord- 
ing to  its  literal  sense,  as  well  as  the  first  elaborate  argu- 
ment in  support  of  the  right  of  private  judgment,  is  that 
of  William  Whitaker  (i 547-1 595),  who,  it  may  also  be 
noted,  put  a  knowledge  of  Hebrew  and  Greek  next  to 
prayer,  as  a  means  of  ascertaining  the  sense  of  Scripture." 
William  Tyndale's  great  service  for  the  Church,  in  which 
D'Aubigne  sees  the  conquest  of  England  by  the  Refor- 
mation,^ was  of  significance  for  the  history  of  interpretation 
only  in  a  secondary  sense.  By  his  translation  of  the  Bible 
into  English  (N.  T.  in  1526)  it  may  well  be  that  he  aided 
many  a  ploughboy  to  a  better  knowledge  of  Scripture  than 
was  possessed  by  some  of  the  bishops;  and  his  version 
with  others  of  the  sixteenth  century  helped  to  prepare  the 
way  for  an  advance  in  biblical  exposition.  His  desire  to 
deliver  people  from  false  interpretations  of  Scripture  by 
putting  the  text  itself  into  their  hands  was  a  desire  that  un- 
doubtedly had  a  large  measure  of  fulfilment  in  his  own  time. 
Tyndale's  own  exposition,  however,  reproduced  the  defects 

^  He  was  decidedly  not  progressive  as  a  "  scripturist."  He  never 
coiold  break  with  the  ancient  doctors.  See  letter  to  Vadian,  Original 
Letters  relative  to  the  English  Reformation,  edited  by  Hastings  Rob- 
inson. 

2  See  A  Disputation  on  Holy  Scripture  against  the  Papists,  etc.,  trans- 
lated and  edited  for  the  Parker  Society  by  William  Fitzgerald,  pp.  408, 
447-466,  467-473. 

3  See  The  Reformation  in  Europe  in  the  Time  of  Calvin,  5.  259. 


222  THE    INTERPRETATION    OF   THE    BIBLE 

of  Luther's  method/  He  warns  his  readers  to  beware  of 
subtle  allegories.  "Scripture,"  he  says,  "has  but  one 
simple  literal  sense  whose  light  the  owls  (i.e.  the  papists) 
cannot  abide."  ^  Tyndale  was  also  as  genuinely  opposed 
to  the  scholastic  handling  of  the  Bible  as  was  Luther  or 
Calvin.  Every  priest,  he  said,  had  his  own  doctor,  and  to 
uphold  him  he  corrupted  the  Scriptures.  "Of  what  text 
thou  provest  hell,  will  another  prove  purgatory,  another 
limbo  patrum,  another  the  assumption  of  our  lady,  and 
another  shall  prove  of  the  same  text  that  an  ape  hath  a 
tail."  ^  But,  on  the  other  hand,  in  sharp  contrast  with  his 
theoretical  rejection  of  allegory,  he  found  Christ  described 
in  the  ceremonies,  riddles,  and  parables  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment,^ being  fully  persuaded  that  God  showed  Moses  the 
secrets  of  Christ  and  the  very  manner  of  his.  death ;  he 
regarded  the  Epistle  to  the  Romans  as  "an  epitome  of  the 
whole  learning  of  Christ's  gospel" ;  and  his  exposition  was 
never  independent  of  "the  common  articles  of  faith,"  i.e. 
the  traditional  orthodox  doctrines  of  the  Church.'  Thus 
Tyndale  as  an  expositor  stood  under  the  influence  of  Lu- 
ther, and  his  example  was  typical.  English  Christians  of 
his  century  went  to  school  to  foreign  teachers. 

We  may  now  bring  the  present  chapter  to  a  close  with  a 
swift  glance  at  the  salient  points  with  which  it  has  been  con- 
cerned.    The  more  vital  exegesis  of  the  fifteenth  and  six- 


*  How  deeply  he  was  influenced  by  Luther  may  be  seen  from  his  Pro- 
logue to  Romans.  See  Doctrinal  Treatises,  edited  for  the  Parker  Society 
by  Henry  Walter. 

*  See  op.  cit.,  p.  393.  ■•  See  op.  cit.,  p.  144. 

^  See  op.  cit.,  p.  158.  *  See  op.  cit.,  pp.  167,  422,  5o<S. 


INTERPRETATION  OF  SCRIPTURE  BY  REFORMERS       223 

teenth  centuries  had  its  rise  in  a  profound  spiritual  reaction 
against  the  barrenness  and  inefficiency  of  Scholasticism, 
and  more  especially  against  the  corruption  of  the  Church. 
Contemporary  with  this  spiritual  reaction,  and  promoting 
it,  came  Humanism,  from  which  exegesis,  particularly  that 
of  the  sixteenth  century,  received  a  new  element.  Reaction 
against  Scholasticism  gave  new  prominence  to  the  early 
interpreters,  —  the  Fathers  of  the  third,  fourth,  and  fifth 
centuries, — but  Humanism  with  its  grammars  and  lexicons 
introduced  a  force  which  was  destined  ultimately  to  carry 
exegesis  to  a  higher  level  than  that  of  the  Fathers.  This 
new  method  of  exegesis,  though  very  imperfectly  applied 
in  the  sixteenth  century,  and  the  popularization  of  the 
Bible  through  numerous  translations,  were  those  contribu- 
tions of  the  Reformers  to  a  better  interpretation  of  Scrip- 
ture, which  possessed  great  and  abiding  significance. 


CHAPTER  IX 

INTERPRETATION  OF  SCRIPTURE  IN  THE  SEVENTEENTH  AND 
EIGHTEENTH   CENTURIES 

While  no  clear  line  marks  off  the  exegesis  of  the  seven- 
teenth century  from  that  of  the  Reformation,  or,  on  the 
other  hand,  from  that  of  the  eighteenth  century,  and  while 
also  there  is  no  clear  boundary  separating  the  exegesis  of 
those  two  centuries  from  that  of  the  nineteenth,  yet  the 
exegesis  of  that  period  from  1600  to  1800,  when  one  has 
regard  to  its  main  features,  does  not  allow  itself  to  be  mis- 
taken for  that  of  the  sixteenth  century,  still  less  is  it  to  be 
confused  with  that  which  has  been  developed  in  more 
recent  times. 

It  may  tend  to  clearness  of  apprehension  of  the  exegetical 
movement  throughout  this  period,  if  at  the  outset  we  glance 
at  two  facts  which  in  a  more  or  less  fundamental  manner 
determined  the  direction  of  the  movement  and  affected  its 
results. 

The  Reformation  had  two  centres,  Wittenberg  and 
Geneva,  which,  though  not  far  apart  on  the  map  of  Eu- 
rope, were  so  widely  sundered  in  some  matters  of  theology 
that  the  age  of  Luther  and  Calvin,  in  which  war  had  been 
waged  against  the  errors  and  abuses  of  the  Cathohc  Church, 

was  followed  by  a  century  of  more  bitter  and  far  more  dcs- 

224 


THE  SEVENTEENTH  AND  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURIES     225 

picable  warfare  between  the  divisions  of  the  Protestant 
Church.  This  began  even  before  the  Fathers  had  fallen 
asleep.  One  of  the  reasons  which  Melanchthon  gave  why 
he  would  welcome  death  was  that  he  should  thereby  be 
set  free  from  the  rancor  of  theologians.  The  bitter  feeling 
between  Lutherans  and  Calvinists  increased,  until  at  the 
outbreak  of  the  Thirty  Years'  War  (1618)  there  were 
Lutherans  who  would  rather  come  under  Catholic  rule 
than  have  the  poison  of  Calvinism  disseminated  among 
them.^ 

Hardly  less  intense  was  the  spirit  of  intolerance  in  the 
Netherlands  at  this  time  between  Calvinists  and  Armin- 
ians,  when  Grotius  was  sentenced  to  imprisonment  for  life, 
or  in  France,  where  Protestantism  was  finally  crushed  and 
exterminated  by  the  revocation  of  the  Edict  of  Nantes  in 
1685 ;  and  across  the  Channel  the  conflict  between  Presby- 
terianism  and  Episcopacy  from  James  I  to  Charles  II 
absorbed  the  interest  of  theologians,  and  even  demanded 
the  sacrifice  of  not  a  few  lives.  We  cannot  doubt  that  the 
theological  strife  and  intolerance  which  prevailed  in  the 
seventeenth  century  was  a  serious  check  on  the  normal 
development  of  biblical  studies.^ 

The  condition  of  Catholic  lands  was  no  less  discourag- 
ing to  religious  scholarship.  The  Decrees  of  the  Council 
of  Trent  (1546)  had  made  it  unsafe  for  any  one  to  study 
the  Bible  except  by  the  light  of  Church  doctrine,  and  thus 
had  erected  an  impassable  barrier  against  the  spirit  of  the 
Renaissance. 

'■  Comp.  Planck,  Geschichte  der  Prot.  Theologie  von  der  Konkordicn- 
fortnel,  etc.,  p.  46. 

^  Comp.  Meyer,  Geschichte  der  Schrifterklarung,  4.  3. 
Q 


226  THE   INTERPRETATION    OF   THE   BIBLE 

A  second  fact  that  affected  interpretation  in  the  seven- 
teenth and  eighteenth  centuries  was  the  rise  of  modern 
philosophy  and  the  consequent  abandonment  of  Aristote- 
Hanism  and  the  Ptolemaic  system.  Giordano  Bruno  was 
burned  at  the  stake  in  Rome  in  1600.  Francis  Bacon  died 
in  1526,  Kepler  in  1630,  Galileo  in  1642,  Descartes  in  1650, 
and  Spinoza  in  1677.  Bruno,  Kepler,  and  Galileo,  build- 
ing on  the  work  of  Copernicus,  established  a  new  concep- 
tion of  the  universe,  to  which  Newton  somewhat  later  made 
his  contribution.  The  earth  was  shown  to  be  a  globe  re- 
volving on  its  axis  and  revolving  around  the  sun,  and  not  the 
stable  and  important  centre  of  the  universe  which  it  had 
long  been  supposed  to  be.  Bruno  held  as  a  philosopher 
what  Galileo  with  his  telescope  helped  to  demonstrate, 
viz.,  that  the  universe  is  endless.  Bruno  laid  down  the 
principle,  now  widely  accepted,  that  the  Scriptures  do  not 
discuss  natural  phenomena  from  the  scientific  point  of  view ; 
that  their  aim  is  wholly  practical,  and  that  therefore  they 
were  obliged  to  use  popular  speech. 

Lord  Bacon,  by  his  doctrine  of  the  true  method  of  knowl- 
edge, contributed  to  the  ultimate  advance  of  scientific  in- 
terpretation of  the  Bible,  though  in  his  own  attitude  toward 
the  Scriptures  and  his  attempts  at  interpretation,  he  did 
extreme  violence  to  his  own  theory,  showing  a  true  mediaeval 
willingness  to  subject  reason  to  the  authority  of  tradition.* 

That  the  philosophy  of  Descartes  had  immediate  bear- 

'  See,  e.g.,  The  Advancement  of  Learning,  Book  I:  "We  are  to  believe 
God's  word,  though  we  find  a  reluctation  in  our  reason  "  ;  and  "  I  do  much 
condemn  that  interpretation  of  Scripture  which  is  only  after  the  manner 
as  men  use  to  interpret  a  profane  book." 


THE  SEVENTEENTH  AND  EIGHTEENTH  ;CENTURIES     227 

ings  on  theology,  and  therefore  on  the  current  interpretation 
of  Scripture,  is  manifest  in  the  fact  that  both  Protestants 
and  Roman  Cathohcs  were  largely  hostile  to  it.  Within  a 
few  years  of  his  death  it  was  forbidden  to  teach  his  doctrines 
in  France ;  in  Holland,  also,  no  follower  of  his  could  teach 
or  preach.  Nor  was  the  fear  of  his  influence  on  the  Church 
groundless,  for  by  its  exaltation  of  reason  his  philosophy 
was  inimical  to  tradition,  and  by  its  appreciation  of  doubt 
as  a  factor  in  the  attainment  of  tmth,  it  certainly  was  hostile 
to  the  doctrine  of  the  supreme  authority  of  the  Church.* 

Spinoza's  thought  also  had  immediate  bearings  on  reli- 
gion and  the  Bible.  Some  of  his  criticisms  we  shall  con- 
sider in  another  connection.  Here  we  refer  to  his  general 
significance  for  interpretation,  which  consisted  in  his  ad- 
vocacy of  absolute  freedom  of  religious  behef,  and  in  his 
doctrine  that  God  is  the  immanent,  not  the  external,  cause 
of  all  things.^ 

Locke  and  Hume,  not  to  mention  other  successors  of 
Descartes  and  Spinoza,  influenced  the  interpretation  of 
Scripture,  not  simply  in  the  general  way  of  stimulating 
theological  thought,  but  also  by  promoting  a  rational 
method  of  deahng  with  all  religious  questions. 

With  this  preliminary  glance  at  two  facts  which,  in  widely 
different  ways,  influenced  interpretation  in  the  period  with 
which  we  are  dealing,  we  come  now  to  a  closer  \iew  of  our 
subject.  We  shall  consider  first  the  general  exegesis  of 
the  seventeenth  and  eighteenth  centuries,  the  normal  type 
to   be   found   among  the   leading  divines   and   scholars, 

1  See  Hoffding,  History  of  M odern  Philosophy,  i.  242-243. 

2  See  Hoffding,  op.  cit.,  1.  311,  314-315. 


228  THE   INTERPRETATION   OF   THE    BIBLE 

and  then  study  those  few  thinkers  who  departed  from  the 
normal  type  and  whose  labors  marked  the  way  of  true 
progress. 

There  were,  indeed,  departures  from  the  normal  type  of 
exegesis  in  those  centuries  which  did  not  contribute  to  the 
progress  of  the  science  of  interpretation.  Such  was  the 
departure  of  George  Fox  (1624-1690),  who,  in  the  second 
half  of  the  seventeenth  century,  founded  the  Quaker  com- 
munion, and  the  departure  of  Emanuel  Swedenborg 
( 1 688-1 772),  who,  about  a  century  later,  founded  the  Church 
of  the  New  Jerusalem.  Fox  went  to  the  extreme  of  Hter- 
J  -i-  alism,  and  Swedenborg  to  the  extreme  of  mystical  inter- 
pretation. Both  appealed  to  an  inner  light  or  revelation 
in  support  of  their  interpretations ;  both  ignored  grammar 
and  lexicon.  Fox  tells  us  that  he  dissuaded  a  man  from 
founding  a  college  in  which  men  were  to  be  fitted  for  the 
^  N'  ministry  by  the  study  of  Greek  and  Hebrew,  and  that  he 
dissuaded  him  by  showing  from  the  Apocalypse  that  it  is 
the  "beast"  and  the  "harlot"  who  have  power  over  lan- 
guages !  ^  In  the  case  of  his  refusing  to  take  an  oath,  his 
exegesis  seems  to  have  put  his  adversaries  to  confusion, 
though  it  did  not  keep  him  out  of  prison.  When  asked  to 
kiss  the  Bible  and  make  oath,  he  opened  to  Ps.  2  and  Matt. 
5.  We  are  bidden,  he  said,  to  kiss  the  Son,  and  the  Son 
says,  "Swear  not  at  all."  How  comes  it  then  that  this 
book  is  at  liberty  among  you,  while  one  who  keeps  it  is 
thrown  into  prison  ?  ^ 

Swedenborg  held  that  the  word  in  every  part  of  its 
literal    sense    contains    two    interior    senses,    one    called 

'See  Fox's  Journal,  1.  351.  ^  See  Journal,  2.  57. 


THE  SEVENTEENTH  AND  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURIES     229 

spiritual  and  the  other  celestial,  and  that  because  of  these 
interior  senses  —  not  because  of  the  Uteral  —  the  word  is 
holy  in  every  syllable/ 

The  movements  of  Fox  and  Swedenborg  may  illustrate 
the  departures  from  the  normal  type  of  exegesis  in  the 
seventeenth  and  eighteenth  centuries  which  did  not  pro- 
mote exegetical  science.^  Looking  now  at  that  normal 
type  of  exegesis,  we  observe  that  it  is  not  a  new  phenomenon. 
We  have  met  it  before,  notably  in  the  writings  of  Calvin. 
Here  and  there  in  the  hands  of  some  exceptionally  strong 
character,  a  Milton  or  an  Edwards,  it  may  take  on  this  or 
that  new  feature,  but  still  it  persists  essentially  unchanged. 
The  good  elements  of  sixteenth  century  interpretation  are 
rarely  improved  in  the  two  following  centuries ;  the  bad  are 
sometimes  more  pronounced.  It  is  to  be  said  to  the 
credit  of  the  period  under  consideration  that  its  normal 
type  of  exegesis  regards  the  literal  sense  of  the  text.  The 
words  of  Richard  Hooker  (15 53-1600)  have  a  wide  ap- 
phcation  throughout  the  period.  " I  hold  it,"  he  says,  "for 
a  most  infallible  rule  in  exposition  of  Sacred  Scriptures  that 
when  a  literal  construction  will  stand,  the  farthest  from 
the  letter  is  commonly  the  worst.  There  is  nothing  more 
dangerous  than  this  deluding  art  which  changeth  the  mean- 
ing of  words  as  alchymy  doth  or  would  do  the  substance  of 
metals,  making  of  anything  what  it  Usteth,  and  bringeth  in 

*  See  The  True  Christian  Religion,  pp.  251,  318. 

^'The  Quietism  of  Molinos  (1627-1696)  and  Madame  Guyon  (1648- 
1 71 7)  affords  a  similar  departure,  but  it  did  not  issue  in  an  organization. 
The  exegesis  of  the  Quietists  was  like  that  of  the  Mystics  of  the  fourteenth 
and  fifteenth  centuries. 


230  THE   INTERPRETATION   OF  THE   BIBLE 

the  end  all  truth  to  nothing."  *  In  general,  the  example 
of  Calvin  in  rejecting  allegorical  interpretation  was  fol- 
lowed by  the  leading  divines  and  scholars  of  the  next  two 
centuries.  There  were,  however,  some  conspicuous  ex- 
ceptions to  this  rule.  Thus  Blaise  Pascal  (1623-1662) 
regarded  the  Old  Testament  as  written  in  a  cipher,  which 
Jesus  and  his  apostles  were  the  first  to  unlock.^  The  law, 
sacrifices,  and  the  kingdom  are  regarded  by  him  as  only 
figures.  If  one  takes  them  as  realities,  they  are  at  once 
seen  to  be  full  of  contradictions,  and  meaningless. 

With  Pascal  we  may  associate,  in  this  point,  the  greatest 
of  the  theologians  of  the  following  century,  Jonathan  Ed- 
wards (1693-1758).  There  are  a  multitude  of  things  in 
the  Old  Testament,  he  says,  which  the  Church  did  not  then 
understand,  but  which  were  reserved  to  be  unfolded  in  the 
Christian  Church,  such  as  most  of  their  types  and  shadows 
and  prophecies,  which  make  up  the  greatest  part  of  the 
Old  Testament.^  The  Scriptures  were  "made  mystical," 
he  says,  that  God's  people  might  have  "exercise  for  their 
pious  wisdom  and  study."  *  What  hidden  meaning  the 
"pious  wisdom"  of  Edwards  was  able  to  bring  forth  out 
of  the  Old  Testament,  the  following  instances  of  his  exege- 
sis will  sufficiently  suggest.     We  read  in  Gen.  5  :  29  that 

'  See  Works  of  Richard  Hooker,  edited  by  Isaac  Walton,  2.  7-8. 

*  See  Pascal,  Thoughts,  Letters,  and  Opuscules,  translated  by  O.  W. 
Wight,  p.  303. 

8  See  The  Works  of  President  Edwards,  edition  of  181 7,  8.  180. 

■•  Comp.  Owen,  The  Glorious  Mystery  of  the  Person  of  Christ,  pp. 
138-142:  "The  meanest  believer  may  now  find  out  more  of  the  work  of 
Christ  in  the  types  of  the  Old  Testament  than  any  prophets  or  wise  men 
could  have  done  of  old." 


THE  SEVENTEENTH  AND  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURIES     23I 

Lamech,  at  the  birth  of  a  son,  gave  him  the  name  Noah, 
saying,  "This  same  shall  comfort  us  for  our  work  and  for 
the  toil  of  our  hands."  How  was  this  done ?  First,  says 
Edwards,  he  comforted  them  as  the  ancestor  of  the  Re- 
deemer; second,  as  the  inventor  of  wine,  which  was  a 
remarkable  type  of  the  blood  of  Christ  and  his  spiritual 
benefits ;  third,  as  one  who  had  leave  to  eat  flesh  —  another 
type  of  our  feeding  on  Christ  and  having  spiritual  life  and 
refreshment  in  him ;  and  fourth,  Noah  comforted  his  par- 
ents by  means  of  the  promise  which  God  gave  to  him, 
that  there  should  be  no  more  a  flood  upon  the  earth. ^ 

Again,  Edwards  regarded  the  book  of  Esther  as  "very 
probably  a  history  that  is  a  shadow  of  Gospel  things  and 
times."  Thus  the  great  feast  that  Ahasuerus  made  is  the 
Gospel  feast.  Vashti  is  the  Church  of  the  Jews,  Esther 
the  later  Church,  Mordecai  the  Gospel  ministry,  and  Ha- 
man  is,  of  course.  Antichrist !  Thus  Edwards  went  with 
Rabanus  Maurus  and  other  mediaeval  writers  to  an  extreme 
in  reading  the  New  Testament  into  the  Old.^ 

Edwards  treated  the  New  Testament  also  as  having  a 
mystical  sense.  Thus,  in  speaking  of  the  genealogy  in  Matt. 
I,  he  observes  that  the  only  women  mentioned  as  belonging 
to  the  ancestry  of  Jesus  were  harlots  or  Gentiles.  These 
are  taken  notice  of,  he  says,  because  Christ's  descending 
from  several  harlots  or  Gentiles  intimates  unto  us  that  all 

^  See  op.  cit.,  8.  51.  >  ,       ^ 

^  Comp.  also  John  Owen, .  The  Glorious  Mystery  of  the  Person  of 
Christ,  pp.  461-462;  John  Wesley  (1703-1791),  who  declares  that  there 
is  "no  contrariety  at  all  between  the  law  and  the  Gospel"  {Works,  edition 
of  1839,  I.  223);  Jonathan  Edwards,  op.  cit.,  8.  21  f . ;  and  Isaac 
Barrow,  Works,  6.  473  f. 


232  THE    INTERPRETATION    OF   THE   BIBLE 

who  are  saved  by  Christ  were  sinners.^  Thus  the  construc- 
tion of  a  genealogy  of  Jesus  had  in  view  a  point  of  Chris- 
tian teaching,  and  indeed  a  point  which  no  Christian  ever 
called  in  question.  It  is  not  quite  clear  how  the  fact  that 
some  of  the  ancestors  of  Jesus  were  harlots  or  Gentiles 
should  intimate  that  all  who  were  to  be  saved  by  him  were 
sinners.  With  as  good  ground  might  one  argue  that  the 
fact  that  most  of  the  ancestors  of  Jesus  were  Jews,  not  Gen- 
tiles, and  law-abiding  people,  not  harlots^  intimated  that 
those  who  were  to  be  saved  by  him  were  not  sinners.  The 
truth  is  that  neither  conclusion  is  of  the  slightest  value. 

But  Pascal  and  Edwards,  in  the  point  under  considera- 
tion, are  exceptions  to  the  rule.  Allegorical  interpretation, 
even  of  the  Old  Testament,  received  such  a  blow  in  the 
sixteenth  century  that  in  the  next  two  centuries  it  was 
rarely  conspicuous  in  men  of  recognized  ability.  Indeed, 
the  aversion  to  it  was  so  deep-seated  that  it  appears  to  have 
hindered  the  recognition  of  the  true  nature  of  some  portions 
of  Scripture,  as,  for  example,  the  early  chapters  of  Genesis. 

It  was  natural  that,  with  the  rejection  of  allegorical 
interpretation,  the  view  was  maintained  that  the  Scriptures 
are  intelligible.  The  men  who  drew  up  the  Westminster 
Confession  of  Faith  (1647)  held  the  view  of  the  Antiochian 
school  in  the  early  Church,  that  all  necessary  truths  of 
Scripture  arc  plain,  and  with  this  they  held  the  principle 
that  the  Scripture  itself  is  the  only  infallible  rule  for  the 
interpretation  of  Scripture.^  The  earnestness  with  which 
these  assertions  were  made  and  defended  was  due  to  the 

'  See  op.  cil.,  8.  285. 

^  See  Confessimi,  chapter  i,  sees,  vii  and  ix. 


THE  SEVENTEENTH  AND  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURIES 


233 


reaction  from  the  dominion  of  the  Catholic  doctrine  of  the 
necessity  both  of  tradition  and  of  the  Church  to  any  trust- 
worthy interpretation  of  Scripture.  In  view  of  that  in- 
tellectually destructive  dominion,  this  earnestness  was  fully 
justified.  Moreover,  there  are  probably  few  scholars  at  the 
present  day  who  will  not  agree  with  the  declaration  of  John 
Milton,  who,  in  refuting  the  claim  that  the  Scriptures  are 
obscure  and  need  the  interpretation  of  the  Fathers,  said 
that  the  Scriptures,  even  at  their  worst,  are  plainer  than  the 
Fathers.^ 

But  while  the  doctrine  of  the  intelligibility  of  Scripture 
marks  an  advance  upon  the  Roman  Catholic  position,  the 
language  of  the  Westminster  Symbol,  that  Scripture  is 
an  infallible  rule  for  the  interpretation  of  Scripture,  must 
now  be  regarded  as  an  extreme  and  unwarrantable  over- 
statement of  an  important  exegetical  principle. 

The  relation  of  the  normal  type  of  exegesis  in  the 
seventeenth  and  eighteenth  centuries  to  the  inspiration  of 
Scripture  may  be  seen  at  its  best  in  the  Symbol  which  has 
just  been  mentioned,  and  we  may  well  pause  for  a  moment 
to  consider,  not  the  doctrine  itself,  but  its  alleged  Scripture 
foundation.  That  the  Hebrew  and  Greek  Scriptures  were 
"immediately  inspired"  by  God  was  inferred  as  certain 
from  four  New  Testament  passages.^  In  the  first  of  these 
(Luke    16:29,  31)  Abraham  is  represented  by  Jesus  as 


*  See  his  Tract  Of  Reform  in  England. 

^  See  chapter  i,  sec.  2.  SchafF,  The  Creeds  of  Christendom,  i.  767,  says 
of  the  entire  chapter  regarding  the  Scriptures:  "No  other  Protestant 
symbol  has  such  a  clear,  judicious,  concise,  and  exhaustive  statement  of 
this  fundamental  article  of  Protestantism." 


234  THE    INTERPRETATION   OF   THE   BIBLE 

telling  the  spirit  of  the  rich  man  that  his  brothers  on  earth 
have  Moses  and  the  prophets.  If  they  give  heed  to  these 
teachers,  they  will  escape  the  place  of  torment.  In  the 
second  passage  (Eph.  2 :  20)  the  Ephesian  Christians  are 
said  by  Paul  to  be  built  on  the  foundation  of  the  apostles 
and  prophets,  Christ  Jesus  being  the  chief  corner-stone. 
The  third  passage  is  that  one  in  Revelation  (22 :  18-19) 
which  gave  so  great  offence  to  Martin  Luther,  viz.,  those 
closing  words  which  threaten  grievous  woes  to  any  one 
who  should  add  aught  to  the  book  or  take  aught  from  it. 
The  fourth  and  last  is  Paul's  well-known  word  to  Timothy 
(2  Tim.  3:16)  about  the  profitableness  of  "  inspired " 
Scripture.  Now  of  these  four  passages,  the  first  obviously 
has  to  do  only  with  the  practical  value  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament :  Moses  and  the  prophets  teach  the  duty  of  mercy. 
The  second  affirms  the  religious  value  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment and  the  New,  which  value  is  most  manifest  in  Jesus. 
The  third  applies  to  the  Apocalypse  only,  and  simply 
affirms  its  importance.  Thus  three  of  the  four  alleged 
proofs  of  "immediate  inspiration  by  God"  do  not  at 
all  concern  inspiration,  immediate  or  mediate.  They 
merely  afiirm  the  value  of  Scripture,  but  leave  quite  un- 
touched the  peculiar  7node  of  its  origin.  There  is  one 
passage  out  of  the  four,  or  rather  one  single  word  in  one 
passage,  which,  in  a  general  manner,  associates  Scripture 
with  God.* 

What  follows  in  reference  to  the  exegesis  of  the  West- 
minster divines?     This,  at  least,  that  they,  like  many  theo- 

'  Compare  the  Westminster  support  of  the  point  that  the  Scriptures 
have  been  "kept  pure  in  all  ages."     Matt.  5:  18. 


THE  SEVENTEENTH  AND  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURIES     235 

logians  of  other  times,  when  they  had  a  doctrine  to  estab- 
lish out  of  Scripture,  had  Httle  difficuUy  in  establishing  it. 
The  exegetical  support  of  their  view  of  inspiration  suggests 
that  they  proceeded  from  without  inward  rather  than  from 
within  outward.  They  appealed  to  Scripture  rather  than 
listened  to  it. 

We  pass  on  to  note  that  the  normal  type  of  exegesis  in 
the  seventeenth  and  eighteenth  centuries  was  characterized 
by  great  regard  for  the  doctrines  of  the  early  Church.  It 
vv^as  true  in  this  respect  to  the  example  of  the  Reformers. 
It  proceeded  from  the  Fathers  to  the  Bible,  not  to  the  Bible 
independently  of  the  Fathers.  The  main  doctrines  of  the 
third  and  fourth  centuries  were  held  much  as  axiomatic 
truths.  It  was  taken  for  granted  that  they  were  funda- 
mental in  the  Scriptures.  Therefore  the  Bible  w^as  not 
searched  for  its  teaching,  but  rather  for  proof  of  what  was 
assumed  to  be  its  teaching.  Take  as  an  illustration  of  this 
point,  the  paraphrase  which  Joseph  Hall  (1574-1656) 
wrote  on  the  "hard  texts"  of  Scripture.  He  counted 
Rom.  1 : 3  such  a  text,  in  which  the  apostle  says  that  the 
promise  of  God  in  the  Prophets  concerned  his  son,  "who 
was  born  of  the  seed  of  David,  according  to  the  flesh." 
The  explanatory  paraphrase  runs  as  follows:  "  Concern- 
ing his  only  and  eternal  Son  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord,  who, 
taking  upon  him  our  nature,  was  miraculously  conceived 
by  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  took  flesh  of  the  Blessed  Virgin 
Mary,  who  was  of  the  seed  of  David."  ^  Thus  the  par- 
aphrase neatly  superimposes  the  current  orthodoxy  upon 
the  text,  and  makes  it  indeed  a  "  hard  text." 

1  See  Joseph  Hall,  Works,  Oxford,  183 7-1 839,  4.  288. 


236  THE    INTERPRETATION   OF   THE   BIBLE 

Thomas  Goodwin  (1600-1679),  speaking  of  the  blessing 
of  Aaron  in  Num.  6,  comments  as  follows  on  the  fact  that 
Jehovah  is  there  thrice  mentioned  :  "the  three  Persons  and 
their  blessing  of  us  are  intended,  though  not  explicitly 
mentioned."  ^ 

John  Milton,  though  more  independent  than  most  theo- 
logians of  his  century,  found  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  in 
Gen.  I,  and  held  that  the  question  of  man's  redemption 
was  discussed  by  the  Father  and  the  Son  before  the  fall 
of  Adam.^ 

Lord  Bacon  remarks  in  The  Advancement  of  Learning: 
"If  the  choice  observations  upon  texts  of  Scripture  which 
have  been  made  dispersedly  in  sermons  in  the  past  forty 
years  had  been  set  down  in  continuance,  it  had  been  the  best 
work  in  divinity  which  had  been  written  since  the  apostles' 
times."  But  there  seems  to  be  large  ground  for  modifying 
this  opinion  and  saying  that  such  a  work,  though  expanded 
to  cover  also  the  entire  century  after  Bacon's  death,  would 
remind  us  less  often  of  the  apostolic  writings  than  of  those 
which  were  produced  in  the  third  and  fourth  centuries. 
Its  "choice  observations"  upon  texts  of  Scripture  are  very 
often  too  theological  to  remind  us  at  all  of  the  writings  of 
apostles,  and  they  as  often  lack  that  freedom  which  so 
largely  characterized  the  first  age  of  the  Church. 

Under  the  normal  type  of  exegesis  of  the  seventeenth  and 
eighteenth  centuries,  we  must  place  the  first  Christian  trca- 

*  See  Goodwin,  Works,  edition  of  1861,  i.  20. 

*  See  Paradise  Lost,  Book  iii  and  vii.  In  his  Tract  on  Church  Doctrine, 
Milton  held  the  existence  of  the  Son  before  the  world,  but  denied  that  the 
Scriptures  represent  this  existence  as  eternal.  Illustrations  of  this  point 
might  be  greatly  multijjlied  from  every  branch  of  the  Church. 


THE  SEVENTEENTH  AND  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURIES     237 

tise  on  the  chronology  of  the  Bible  and  the  first  English 
Life  of  Christ.  Archbishop  Ussher  (1581-1656)  was  one 
of  the  most  learned  men  of  his  time  in  England,  and  Jeremy 
Taylor  (1613-1667),  "the  Shakespeare  of  English  prose," 
one  of  the  most  interesting  and  iniiuential  men  in  the  An- 
glican Church.  And  yet  Ussher's  chronology,  which  has 
been  the  standard  for  two  and  a  half  centuries,  and  which 
was  not  dropped  from  the  pages  of  the  Bible  itself  until  the 
new  edition  of  1881,  soberly  put  the  creation  of  the  world 
in  the  night  before  the  twenty -third  of  October  4004  B.C., 
and  treated  the  poetical  stories  of  Genesis,  in  some  of  which 
men  are  reputed  to  have  lived  eight  and  nine  centuries, 
as  though  they  were  statistical  tables  compiled  by  con- 
temporary experts.^ 

In  Jeremy  Taylor's  Life  of  Christ  ^  the  normal  type  of 
exegesis  of  the  period  which  we  are  considering  is  some- 
what exaggerated.  He  magnified  the  miraculous  element 
almost  like  a  mediaeval  legend-writer.  Thus  the  story  of 
the  star  that  appeared  to  the  Magi  becomes  a  prodigy  of 
the  first  order,  an  angel  in  a  pillar  of  fire,  under  the  sem- 
blance of  a  star,  which  stood  when  the  Magi  stood  and  went 
forward  when  they  were  able.^  Taylor  accepted  the  most 
extravagant  fictions  of  antiquity,  as  that  of  Gregory  Turo- 
nensis,  who  relates  that  the  creek  of  the  river  in  which  Jesus 
was  baptized  was  ever  after  endued  with  healing  power  to 
cure  leprosy.^  He  also  dealt  with  the  details  of  the  Gospel 
regarding  the  childhood  of  Jesus  in  such  a  manner  as 

*  See  Annales  Vet.  Test,  in  vol.  8  of  his  Works,  p.  13. 

^  See  vol.  2  of  Heber's  edition  of  Taylor's  Works. 

3  See  op.  cit.,  pp.  47-48.  *  See  op.  cit.,  p.  185. 


238  THE   INTERPRETATION   OF  THE   BIBLE 

utterly  to  destroy  its  naturalness.  Thus  he  says  that  Mary, 
when  searching  for  Jesus,  went  into  the  temple  to  pray, 
and  there  found  her  twelve  years'  old  boy  "discoursing  up 
to  the  height  of  a  prophet,  with  the  clearness  of  an  angel 
and  the  infallibility  of  inspiration."  The  strength  of  his 
discourse  was  "the  strength  of  argument,  and  science  of  the 
highest  mysteries  of  religion,  and  secret  of  philosophy."  ^ 
This  language  may  now  move  a  smile,  but  it  is  only  a  rhe- 
torical expression  of  the  view  that  was  commonly  read  into 
Luke's  story  of  Jesus  among  the  rabbis  in  the  temple,  and 
which  is  still  to  be  met  with  even  in  so-called  exegetical 
works. 

Thus  far  we  have  spoken  of  the  normal  type  of  exegesis 
in  the  seventeenth  and  eighteenth  centuries,  and  wc  now 
turn  to  the  more  important  task  of  estimating  the  work  of 
those  few  men  who,  not  content  with  the  principles  and 
results  of  exegesis  in  the  past,  had  the  vision  to  discover 
and  the  courage  to  enter  new  fields  of  research,  and  whose 
labors  laid  the  secure  foundations  of  yet  more  fruitful  and 
more  scientific  investigations  in  subsecjucnt  times. 

Of  seventeenth-century  scholars,  or  scholars  whose  chief 
work  fell  in  that  century,  we  shall  speak  of  six  who,  in 
very  unlike  ways  and  with  widely  different  degrees  of  suc- 
cess, contributed  to  the  advance  of  interpretation.  Of 
these  six  men,  Grotius  (1583-1645)  and  Cocceius  (1603- 
i66g)  were  Dutch;  Spinoza  (1632-1677),  a  Jew  who 
revered  Jesus;  Simon  (1638-1712),  a  Frenchman  and  Ro- 
man Catholic;  John  Lightfoot  (1602-1675)  and  Richard 
Bentley  (1662-1742),  English  and  of  the  English  Church. 

'  See  op.  cit.,  p.  142. 


THE  SEVENTEENTH  AND  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURIES     239 

Three  were  preeminent  as  critics  —  Spinoza,  Simon,  and 
Bentley.  Spinoza,  in  his  relation  to  the  Bible,  was  a  philo- 
sophical critic ;  Simon  and  Bentley  critics  of  the  historical 
and  literary  types.  Of  the  others,  Grotius  is  the  best 
representative  of  the  seventeenth-century  annotator,  Coc- 
ceius  was  the  precursor  of  the  discipline  of  biblical  theology, 
and  Lightfoot^  one  of  the  pioneers  in  the  department  of 
rabbinical  learning. 

Grotius  laid  the  foundation  for  his  exegetical  studies 
in  a  critical  knowledge  of  the  classics,  and  was  a  human- 
ist somewhat  of  the  Erasmian  type.^  We  have  introduced 
him  as  the  best  representative  of  the  seventeenth-century 
biblical  annotator,  but  it  ought  to  be  said  that  he  also 
served  the  cause  of  exegesis  as  a  noble  peace-maker  be- 
tween the  Protestants  and  the  Catholics.  He  opposed,  both 
as  a  Christian  and  a  scholar,  the  view  which  had  been 
widely  held  since  Luther's  time  that  the  Pope  was  Anti- 
christ.^ 

The  annotations  of  Grotius  on  the  Gospels  and  Acts  ^ 
had  value  largely  because  they  turned  from  the  dogmatic 
type  of  exegesis  toward  the  historical.  The  work  is  cum- 
brous and  diffuse  like  the  expository  sermons  of  contem- 

^  Johannes  Buxtorf  (1564-1629)  preceded  Lightfoot  and  was  more 
famous  as  a  rabbinic  scholar.  His  service,  however,  was  in  the  department 
of  philology.  See  Keil,  Introdi4ction  to  tlie  Old  Testament,  translated  by 
Douglas,  2.  168-177. 

'See  Vie  de  Grotius  by  De  Burigny,  i.  33. 

^  See  De  Burigny,  op.  cit.,  2.  166. 

*  Annotationes  in  quatuor  Evangelia  et  Acta  Apostolorum,  London, 
1679.  Simon  says  of  this  work:  "II  surpasse  les  autres  commentaires 
qui  ont  ecrit  avant  lui  sur  le  N.T."  See  Hist.  Crit.  des  principaux 
Commentateurs  du  N.T.,  p.  803. 


240  THE   INTERPRETATION   OF  THE   BIBLE 

porary  Puritan  divines/  It  is  adapted  only  to  the  learned. 
It  explains  and  illustrates  many  points  that  appear  to  us 
to  need  no  explanation,  but  does  not  touch  the  great  critical 
problems  of  the  text.  Yet  it  aims  throughout  to  discover 
the  meaning  of  the  sacred  vv^riters,  and  collects  from  Jewish 
and  especially  from  classical  sources  a  large  amount  of 
illustrative  material. 

The  contribution  of  Lightfoot  to  the  interpretation  of 
Scripture,  which  was  supplemented  in  the  next  century  by 
the  labors  of  Schottgen  (1687-1751),^  was  the  opening  of 
the  hitherto  little-known  rabbinical  writings.  As  Reuchlin 
in  the  preceding  century  had  made  the  grammars  of  the 
mediaeval  Jewish  grammarians  the  basis  of  his  own  Hebrew 
text-books,  so  Lightfoot  laid  the  rabbis  of  all  the  past  ages 
under  contribution  for  the  explanation  of  the  sacred  text. 

As  a  commentator,  Lightfoot  did  not  rise  above  the  gen- 
eral type  which  we  have  found  in  the  seventeenth  and 
eighteenth  centuries.  His  exegesis  is  arbitrary  in  method, 
and  everywhere  loyal  to  the  traditional  thcologv'.  Thus 
in  the  word  Elohim  in  Gen.  i :  i  he  finds  the  Trinity  so 
clearly  expressed  that  he  does  not  stop  for  a  word  in  jus- 
tification of  the  view.^  Again,  when  speaking  of  the  ap- 
pearance of  three  men  to  x'Vbraham  at  the  oaks  of  Mamre, 
his  comment  is  that  "the  three  Persons  of  the  Trinity  dine 

'  Thus  Thomas  Goodwin  published  a  volume  of  564  [)ages  on 
Eph.  I,  and  Sibbes  a  volume  of  above  500  pages  on  2  Cor.  i. 

^  Schottgen's  work,  Horae  Hebr.  et  Talmud.,  published  in  1733,  repre- 
sents the  same  dogmatic  tendency  that  we  see  in  Lightfoot.  See,  e.g., 
pp.  916  f. 

'  See  The  Works  of  the  Rev.  and  Learned  John  Lightfoot,  D.D.,  London, 
1684,  I.  I. 


THE  SEVENTEENTH  AND  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURIES    241 

with  Abraham,  and  foretell  the  birth  of  Isaac."  ^  His  deal- 
ing with  the  New  Testament  was  equally  notable.  Thus 
in  Luke's  statement  in  the  prologue  of  his  Gospel  that  he 
had  traced  the  course  of  all  things  accurately /row  the  first 
(dvcoOev),  Lightfoot  takes  this  word  avcoOev  as  meaning 
from  above,  and  thus  makes  Luke  claim  divine  inspiration 
for  his  narrative,  which  his  predecessors  are  assumed 
to  have  lacked  !^ 

The  biblical  chronology  of  Lightfoot,  like  that  of  Ussher, 
was  definite  on  points  which  have  since  been  regarded  as 
unknown,  if  not  unknowable.  Thus,  for  example,  it  is 
said  that  Adam's  fall  was  about  noon  of  the  day  on  which 
he  was  created ;  John  the  Baptist  was  born  in  the  same 
month  in  which  Abraham  was  circumcised ;  and  Jesus  was 
baptized  in  September.^ 

While  Lightfoot  was  laboriously  searching  the  rabbinical 
writings  for  passages  that  might  elucidate  the  biblical  text, 
the  Jew  Spinoza  was  rendering  a  very  different  service  by 
an  independent  study  of  the  text  itself.  Of  all  the  writers 
of  the  seventeenth  century  who  gave  attention  to  the  in- 
terpretation of  Scripture,  Spinoza  is  the  one  whose  attitude 
is  most  thoroughly  modern.  His  biblical  criticism,  how- 
ever, seems  to  be  generally  unknown,^  and  for  that  reason 
it  will  be  somewhat  more  fully  noticed  in  this  place. 

The  true  method  of  interpreting  Scripture  is,  according  to 


'  See  op.  cit.,  p.  13. 

'  See  op.  cit.,  p.  201.  ^  See  op.  cit.,  pp.  2,  13,  208. 

*  Reuss,  History  of  the  New  Testament,  2.  584,  barely  touches  the  gen- 
eral significance  of  Spinoza,  but  see  James  Martineau,  A  Study  of  Spinoza, 
1883,  p.  367. 


242  THE   INTERPRETATION   OF  THE   BIBLE 

Spinoza,  perfectly  harmonious  with  the  method  of  inter- 
preting Nature.  As  the  naturaUst  studies  the  phenomena 
of  Nature,  seeking  to  make  a  faithful  history  of  them,  so 
the  bibHcal  interpreter  must  first  get  a  fund  of  data  regard- 
ing any  writing, — its  author,  date,  occasion,  aim,  and  so 
forth,  — from  which  data  he  may  at  last  deduce  the  thought 
of  the  author.  He  must  note  its  leading  features,  and  be 
able  to  take  a  view  of  it  as  a  whole.  And  all  the  time 
when  he  is  doing  this,  he  is  to  remember  that  what  he 
seeks  is  the  sense  of  the  words,  not  the  truth  of  their  state- 
ment, which  are  two  wholly  different  things.^ 

As  to  the  divinity  of  Scripture,  Spinoza  holds  that  the 
only  way  of  proving  it  is  by  showing  that  Scripture  teaches 
true  virtue.^ 

It  is  plain  from  what  has  been  said  that  Spinoza  relied 
upon  reason  for  the  understanding  of  Scripture.  To  the 
claim  that  Scripture  is  to  be  interpreted  only  by  means 
of  supernatural  illumination,  he  repHed  that  such  illumi- 
nation is  given  only  to  the  faithful,  while  the  words  of  the 
prophets  were  spoken  to  unbelievers  and  were  spoken 
with  the  manifest  expectation  that  they  would  be  under- 
stood. 

Spinoza's  view  of  prophecy  marked  a  definite  advance. 
He  notes  that  the  Jews  in  Old  Testament  times  never 
mentioned  second  causes,  but  attributed  their  gains,  their 
desires,  and  their  conceptions  immediately  to  God.  Hence, 
he  says,  it  is  not  necessary,  when  Scripture  affirms  that 
God  spoke,   to  think  that  supernatural   knowledge  was 

'  See  Oeuvres  de  Spinoza,  translated  by  Emile  Saisset,  2.  125  f. 
'  See  op.  cil.,  p.  128. 


THE  SEVENTEENTH  AND  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURIES 


243 


always  given  to  the  prophet/  The  fact  of  divine  revela- 
tion must  be  expressly  indicated.  Spinoza  does  not  deny 
that  the  Old  Testament  contains  such  revelation.  He 
thinks  that  God  spoke  to  Moses  in  a  veritable  voice,  and 
that  Jesus  received  revelations  immediately,  without  words 
or  images. 

As  to  the  statement  that  the  Spirit  of  God  was  in  the 
prophets,  Spinoza  holds  that  it  signifies  their  exceptional 
virtue  (virtulcm  singular  em),  that  they  practised  piety 
with  superior  constancy  {pietatem  eximia  animi  constantia 
colebant),  and,  finally,  that  they  perceived  the  mind  or 
thought  of  God  (mentem  sive  sententiam  dei)?  They 
differed  among  themselves,  and  God  suited  his  revelations 
to  their  varying  intelligence  and  opinions,  perhaps  also  to 
their  varying  powers  of  imagination,  for  Spinoza  held  that 
superior  power  of  imagination  characterized  the  prophets. 
Since,  then,  the  prophets  received  revelations  according  to 
their  intelhgence  and  opinions,  we  are  called  to  believe 
them  only  in  those  things  which  are  the  object  and  ground 
of  their  revelation.^  As  to  all  other  points  each  is  free  to 
believe  what  he  pleases. 

Spinoza  lays  great  stress  on  the  importance  of  distin- 
guishing between  faith  and  philosophy,  or  rehgion  and 
theology.  He  declares  that  this  was  the  principal  object 
of  his  Tractatus  Theologico-politicus .  He  insists  that  the 
sole  end  of  Scripture  is  to  teach  obedience.  It  does  not 
contain  sublime  speculations  and  philosophical  questions, 

'  See  op.  cit.,  pp.  18  f.  ^  See  op.  cit.,  p.  32. 

2  Quod  finis  et  substantia  est  revelationis.  See  the  Tractatus  theo- 
logico-politicus, edition  of  Van  Vloten  and  Laud,  i.  i. 


244  THE   INTERPRETATION   OF  THE   BIBLE 

but  only  the  simplest  things  which  any  one  can  under- 
stand. In  this  point  he  undoubtedly  went  too  far.  Such 
books  as  Job,  Ecclesiastes,  and  Second  Isaiah  contain 
both  philosophical  questions  and  subKme  speculations, 
but  the  distinction  is  in  general  a  true  one  and  of  im- 
measurable significance.^ 

In  the  department  of  literary  criticism  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment Spinoza's  most  important  departure  from  orthodox 
teaching  was  his  attributing  to  Ezra  the  composition  of  the 
books  from  Genesis  to  2  Kings.  He  held  the  unique  dig- 
nity of  Moses,  yet  did  not  regard  him  as  the  author  of  the 
Pentateuch.  In  this  he  anticipated  the  position  of  modern 
scholarship,  but  his  theory  of  the  composition  of  the  first 
twelve  books  of  the  Bible  has,  of  course,  not  found  accept- 
ance. 

We  pass  from  Spinoza,  who  lived  in  retirement  in  the 
Hague,  to  Cocceius,  a  lecturer  at  Leyden.  In  his  twelve 
folio  volumes  there  is  little  which  is  of  interest  at  the 
present  day,  and  yet  he  deserves  honorable  mention 
among  those  who  promoted  biblical  science  in  the  seven- 
teenth century.  For  he  at  least  conceived  of  a  theology 
which  should  be  legitimately  derived  from  the  Bible,  and 
be  an  orderly  historical  presentation  of  the  content  of 
Scripture.^  A  characteristic  illustration  of  his  use  of  the 
Bible  is  afforded  by  the  sermon  on  the  Ways  of  God  which 
he  preached  in  February,  1669,  on  the  occasion  of  his  laying 

*  See  op.  cit.,  p.  222. 

^  That  Cocceius  saw  something  of  the  truth  of  the  historical  method  of 
exegesis  is  further  shown  by  the  fact  that  his  pupil  Vitringa  (1659-1722) 
is  regarded  by  Delitzsch  as  the  founder  of  the  historical  interpretation  of 
Isaiah ;   see  Kommentar  iiber  Jesaia,  p.  xxxiii. 


THE  SEVENTEENTH  AND  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURIES     245 

down  the  office  of  rector  of  the  university.  In  this  sermon, 
which  is  not  longer  than  those  of  our  day,  he  quotes  or 
alKides  to  three  hundred  and  seven  passages  of  Scripture 
from  forty-five  different  books.  Manifestly  he  believed 
that  the  ways  of  God  are  to  be  authoritatively  understood 
from  the  words  of  God.^  And  yet  Cocceius  did  not  grasp 
the  principle  of  development  in  Scripture,  and  his  exe- 
getical  method  was  mainly  that  of  his  times.  He  often  vio- 
lated his  good  principle  that  interpretation  should  bring  out 
something  from  the  Scriptures,  not  put  something  into 
them.^     It  was  said  that  he  found  Christ  everywhere  in  ,^^, 

the  Old  Testament,  while  Arminius  found  him  nowhere,^ 
and  Reuss  is  of  the  opinion  that  his  exegetical  method 
might  be  fitly  characterized  by  the  words  "verba  sacrae 
Scripturae  significant  id  omne  quod  possunt."  * 

Richard  Simon,  the  fifth  of  our  seventeenth-century 
leaders  in  the  general  field  of  biblical  science,  was  not 
himself  an  interpreter  of  Scripture  nor  a  writer  on  the  the- 
ory of  interpretation.  He  rendered  his  service  as  a  critical 
historian  of  the  Bible. 

To  a  reader  of  the  present  day  it  appears  somewhat 
remarkable  that  the  first  edition  of  Simon's  work  on  the 
Old  Testament  was  destroyed  in  Paris  as  heretical,  with 
the  exception  of  a  few  copies,  and  that  when  he  published  a 
second  edition,  it  was  at  Rotterdam  and  anonymously.^ 

'  See  Opera,  7.  147. 

^  See  Opera,  7.  4:  "  Interpretatio  Scripturarum  est  efferenda  ex  Scrip- 
turis,  non  inferenda  in  illas." 

3  See  Fisher,  History  of  the  Christian  Church,  p.  439. 
*  See  History  of  the  New  Testament,  p.  577. 
^  Histoire  critique  du  V.  T.,  Rotterdam,  1685. 


246  THE    INTERPRETATION    OF   THE   BIBLE 

The  author,  it  is  true,  held  that  only  a  part  of  the  Pentateuch 
was  written  by  Moses,  but  he  regarded  the  rest  as  being 
of  equal  authority  because  written  by  those  whom  Moses 
had  appointed  for  this  very  work.  These  and  other 
similar  public  writers  (ecrivains  publics),  whom,  it  is 
assumed,  the  Israelitish  State  never  lacked,  are  thought  to 
have  been  inspired  no  less  truly  than  were  the  prophets  or 
Moses  himself. 

The  New  Testament,  says  Simon,  recognizes  nothing  in 
all  Scripture  which  is  not  prophetic  and  truly  inspired/ 

Moreover,  Simon  shared  the  Roman  CathoHc  view  of  the 
importance  of  tradition.  He  says  that  if  the  truth  of 
religion  were  not  deposited  in  the  Church  (i.e.  if  there  were 
not  a  tradition  supplementing  the  Scriptures),  it  would 
be  in  vain  to  seek  it  now  in  books  which  have  been  sub- 
jected to  so  much  change.  He  emphatically  rejects  the 
Protestant  view  that  Scripture  is  clear  in  itself.  There  is 
almost  nothing  in  rehgion,  he  says,  of  which  one  can  be 
certain  unless  one  associates  tradition  with  Scripture. 

The  views  just  noticed  constitute  perhaps  the  weakest 
part  of  Simon's  critical  position.  A  permanent  order  of 
ecrivains  publics  in  Old  Testament  times  is  unknown. 
The  idea  that  tradition  is  necessary  to  certainty  in  religion 
because  the  biblical  writings  have  been  subject  to  great 
changes  in  the  course  of  time  is  open  to  serious  objection 
on  two  sides.  It  implies,  in  the  first  place,  that  the  central 
purport  of  Scripture  is  obscure,  a  view  against  which  the 
character  and  words  of  Jesus,  to  mention  only  a  single 
point,  must  ever  stand  as  an  unanswerable  argument ;  and 

'  See  op.  cil.,  Preface. 


THE  SEVENTEENTH  AND  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURIES     247 

it  assumes  also  that  the  Church  has  always  had  an  under- 
standing and  a  spirit  capable  of  testing  and  conserving  the 
revelations  of  God  —  an  assumption  too  deeply  discredited 
by  Christian  history  to  be  worthy  of  consideration. 

The  work  of  Simon  was  published  between  1685  ^.nd 
1693.  Six  years  later  (1699)  Richard  Bentley  pubhshed 
his  Dissertations  upon  the  Epistles  of  Phalaris,  a  work 
which  has  been  called  "the  most  valuable  of  all  critical 
essays."  Its  value  is  not  due  at  all  to  the  importance 
of  its  subject.  Neither  Phalaris,  tyrant  of  Agrigentum  in 
Sicily  in  the  sixth  century  B.C.,  nor  the  epistles  falsely 
ascribed  to  him,  have  any  particular  historical  significance. 
Nor  does  the  value  of  Bentley's  dissertation  consist  in  the 
enunciation  of  any  formal  principles  of  literary  criticism, 
which  can  be  applied  to  the  criticism  of  biblical  writings. 
Its  significance  lies  in  two  things :  it  shows  the  value  of 
internal  evidence  for  the  criticism  of  ancient  writings,  and 
its  treatment  of  that  evidence  in  a  particular  case,  viz., 
the  Epistles  of  Phalaris,  furnishes  a  high  order  of  dis- 
cipline for  the  critical  faculty. 

As  a  specimen  of  hterary  criticism,  Bentley's  essay  was 
a  new  phenomenon  in  history,  and  had  no  parallel  until 
the  day  of  scientific  criticism  of  the  Pentateuch.  Bentley 
himself  did  not  enter  deeply  into  the  literary  criticism  of  the 
Bible.  In  171 7,  when  he  became  professor  of  divinity  at 
Cambridge,  he  read  a  paper  on  the  famous  text  of  the  three 
heavenly  witnesses  (i  John  5:7),  —  not  known  to  be 
extant,  —  which  text  he  rejected  as  spurious,  but  the 
particular  character  of  his  criticism  is  unknown.^     In  his 

'  See  Monk,  Life  of  Richard  Bentley,  2.  17. 


248  THE   INTERPRETATION   OF   THE   BIBLE 

Phileleutherus  Lipsiensis  ^  he  defended  the  criticism  of  the 
biblical  text  against  scholars  like  Whitby,  who  saw  in  it 
the  undermining  of  faith  and  even  of  religion  itself.  Here 
his  service  to  biblical  criticism,  if  less  important  than  in  his 
famous  Dissertations,  was  more  direct  and  more  imme- 
diately fruitful. 

In  the  works  of  Simon  and  Bentley  we  have,  if  not  the 
very  beginning,  at  least  the  first  permanent  monuments  of 
that  discipline  to  which  in  later  times  has  been  given 
the  much  misunderstood  name  of  the  Higher  Criticism.^ 
To  a  contemporary  of  Bentley  may  be  given  in  the  same 
relative  sense  the  honor  of  having  founded  the  depart- 
ment of  Lower  Criticism.  Bentley  himself  might  have 
been  a  co-founder  of  this  branch  also,  had  not  Parliament 
refused  to  allow  the  importation  of  paper  for  his  projected 
Greek  New  Testament  free  of  duty.^  There  were  other 
obstacles  in  the  way,  but  this  was  the  decisive  one. 

Lower  or  textual  criticism  of  the  Bible  prepares  the  way 
for  the  interpreter.  It  may  lighten  the  task  of  exegesis,  as, 
for  example,  when  it  shows  that  i  John  5  :  7  is  spurious 
and  so  to  be  discarded,  or  when  it  simplifies  the  text  by  the 
removal  of  perplexing  variations ;  and,  on  the  other  hand, 
it  may  render  the  task  of  exegesis  more  difficult  by  showing 
that  of  several  diverse  readings  of  a  passage  the  most  ob- 
scure is  likely  to  have  been  the  primitive  one.  But  in 
any  case  it  is  plainly  a  scientifically  necessary  handmaid  of 
interpretation. 

*  Published  in  his  volume  of  Boyle  Lectures,  1692. 
'  Contemporary  hostility  to  criticism  as  practised  by  Bentley  and  others 
is  seen  in  Swift's  Talc  of  a  Tub  and  Battle  of  the  Books. 
^  See  Monk,  op.  cU.,  2.  148. 


THE  SEVENTEENTH  AND  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURIES     249 

The  eighteenth  century  was  as  noted  for  its  labors  in 
behalf  of  a  purer  text  of  the  New  Testament  as  the  seven- 
teenth had  been  for  its  zeal  in  collecting  classical  and  Jewish 
parallels  to  bibhcal  utterances/  This  labor  was  chiefly 
contributed  by  German  scholars,  who  come  forward  more 
prominently  in  connection  with  biblical  studies  in  the 
eighteenth  century  than  the  Dutch  and  English  had  done 
in  the  century  before.  Mill  (i 645-1 707)  was  Enghsh, 
but  the  other  great  names  —  Wetstein  (1693-1754),  Ben- 
gel  (1687-1751),  Semler  (1725-1791),  and  Griessbach 
(1745-1812)  —  are  all  German.  The  best  service  of  Mill 
and  Wetstein  was  in  comparing  and  collating  Mss. ;  that 
of  Bengel,  Semler,  and  Griessbach  was  in  developing  valid 
principles  by  which  to  ascertain  the  primitive  reading. 
These  five  men  probably  contributed  a  total  of  one  hundred 
and  twenty-five  years  of  expert  labor  to  the  task  of  ascer- 
taining the  purest  possible  New  Testament  text.  They 
did  not  finish  the  task,  but  they  laid  all  future  laborers 
under  heavy  obligations  to  them. 

The  formal  science  of  interpretation  was  more  widely 
and  studiously  cultivated  by  the  Germans  in  the  eighteenth 
century  than  ever  before,  and  found  in  the  Institutions  ^ 
of  Rambach  (1693-1735)  its  first  worthy  presentation. 
Exegesis  is  here  treated  as  a  branch  of  human  learning, 
not  as  a  supernatural  gift.     There  is  appreciation  of  its 

*  On  Kennicott's  work  for  the  Old  Testament,  see  Introductions  to  the 
Old  Testament. 

^  Institutiones  hermeneicticae  sacrae,  editio  octava,  1764.  The  work 
of  A.  H.  Francke,  Manuductio  ad  lectionem  scripturae  sacrae,  published 
in  1693,  suffers  from  a  multiplication  of  rules  and  a  lack  of  clear 
principles. 


250  THE   INTERPRETATION   OF  THE    BIBLE 

complexity,  and  the  consequent  variety  and  breadth  of 
qualifications  demanded  for  its  successful  practice.  Yet 
the  author's  own  view  of  Scripture  was  still  too  much  in 
bondage  to  the  past.  Thus,  for  example,  he  speaks  of  the 
perpetual  agreement  of  Scripture,^  based  on  the  fact  that 
it  all  has  one  supreme  Author  who  suggested  the  very  words 
that  should  be  used.  This  is  the  ground  of  his  doctrine  of 
the  analogy  of  faith,  which  doctrine,  though  he  would  not 
have  it  encroach  on  the  use  of  reason,  nevertheless  virtually 
does  this.  The  interpreter  cannot  assume  at  the  outset 
that  the  common  scope  of  all  Scripture  is  Christ,  as  this 
writer  does.  No  such  assumption  is  to  be  made.  That 
there  is  a  common  doctrine  in  all  biblical  writings,  and  that 
this  is  the  "Lydian  stone"  to  which  obscure  passages  are 
to  be  brought,  is  not  a  principle  with  which  a  scientific 
student  can  operate  unless  he  first  establishes  it  either  for 
a  particular  book  or  group  of  books,  or  for  the  entire  body 
of  sacred  writings. 

But  no  eighteenth-century  treatise  on  interpretation  was 
so  notable,  no  treatise  had  so  great  exegetical  influence  in  its 
own  time  or  so  great  interest  for  the  next  century,  as  the 
specimen  of  actual  interpretation  afforded  by  the  G?iomon 
of  Bengel,  whose  name  has  already  been  mentioned  in 
connection  with  text-criticism.  This  work  published  in 
Latin  in  1742  still  possesses  fresh  interest  and  value.  Its 
most  conspicuous  qualities  are  not  accuracy  and  consist- 
ent adherence  to  sound  principles  of  interpretation.  The 
author  speaks  of  the  Scriptures  as  exhibiting  "one  entire 
and  perfect  body,  unencumbered  by  excess,  unimpaired  by 

'  See  op.  cit.,  pp.  242,  278. 


THE  SEVENTEENTH  AND  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURIES     251 

defect."  ^  Equally  deficient  is  his  general  conception  of 
the  Gospels,  of  which  he  says  that  "each  supplies  the  omis- 
sions of  the  preceding."  ^  The  genealogies  of  Matthew  and 
Luke  are  accepted  not  only  as  historical  documents,  but 
also  as  having  theological  significance,  for  Bengel  finds  in 
them  various  proofs  of  the  divinity  of  Jesus.^  He  is  also 
an  easy  harmonizer  of  difficulties  in  the  Gospels.  Thus 
when  Matthew  places  the  sermon  of  Jesus  on  a  mountain 
and  Luke  on  a  plain  (Matt.  5:1;  Luke  6:17),  Bengel 
says  that  Jesus  came  half-way  down  the  mountain ;  and, 
as  he  was  coming  down  with  his  disciples,  he  met  the 
people  coming  up,  and  sat  down  there  to  teach.  Or  take 
the  case  of  the  "staff."  According  to  Matthew,  the  apos- 
tles, when  sent  out,  were  told  by  the  Master  not  to  take 
certain  things,  among  them  a  staff,  while  in  Mark's  ac- 
count the  staff  is  specified  as  something  which  they 
might  take  (Mark  6:8;  Matt.  10 :  10).  Bengel  blends  and 
harmonizes  the  conflicting  texts  as  follows:  "He  who  had 
no  staff  was  not  to  care  about  procuring  one;  he,  how- 
ever, who  possessed  a  staff  might  take  it  with  him,  for 
convenience,  not  defence!"* 

The  Gnomon  is  also  at  times  extremely  fanciful.  Thus 
the  indefiniteness  of  the  statement  that  the  Magi  came 
from  the  east  intimates  "the  unrestricted  universaHty  of 
salvation."  ^  Still  more  noteworthy  is  the  lack  of  a  critical 
literary  sense.  This  is  nowhere  better  illustrated  than  in  the 
following  statement.     "  The  evangelists  have  transcribed 

^  See  Fausset's  edition  of  the  Gnomon,  i.  5-6. 

^  See  op.  cit.,  i.  71.  *  See  op.  cit.,  p.  239. 

^  See  op.  cit.,  pp.  82-108.  ^  See  op.  cit.,  p.  121. 


252 


THE   INTERPRETATION    OF   THE   BIBLE 


at  full  length  two  discourses  of  our  Lord  as  models  of  all 
the  rest ;  the  one  delivered  publicly  at  the  commencement 
of  his  ministry,  the  other  privately  at  its  conclusion " 
(Alatt.  5:7;  John  13:16)/  But  we  have  no  evidence 
whatever  that  these  two  discourses  are  reported  at  their 
original  length.  The  mere  fact  that  they  are  longer  than 
the  other  recorded  utterances  of  Jesus  does  not  prove  that 
they  preserve  all  that  he  said  on  the  respective  occasions. 
They  may  not  preserve  half  or  a  quarter ;  we  have  abso- 
lutely no  means  of  determining  the  point.  As  Httle  right 
have  we  to  infer  that  these  two  discourses  are  models  of 
all  the  rest.  Indeed,  the  Gospels  themselves  show  clearly 
that  Jesus  did  not  always  speak  after  the  fashion  of  the 
Sermon  on  the  IN'Iount  or  of  the  Farewell  Discourse  in 
John.  The  parables  furnish  a  distinct  type,  and  yet 
another  more  common  is  that  of  the  dialogue. 

Hence  we  say  that  the  conspicuous  qualities  of  Bengel's 
great  work  are  not  scientific  accuracy  or  adherence  to 
sound  exegetical  principles.     In  the  first  place,   Bengel 
(,A^  (!  realized,  as  no  one  before  him,  what  Calvin  aimed  at  but 
did  not  attain,  viz.,  brevity.     He  wrote  less  on  an  entire 
Gospel  than  some  of  the  Puritan  divines  of  the  preceding 
century  on  a  single  chapter.     Scarcely  less  conspicuous 
than  his  brevity  is  his  lucidity,  while  underneath  these 
more  formal  qualities  the  reader  is  always  aware  of  a  whole- 
some spiritual  personality,  and  usually  of  good  sense.    The 
most  noticeable  lack  of  this  last  quality  is  furnished  by  the 
X    exposition  of  the  Apocalypse,  that  book  which  has  injured 
the  reputation  for  sanity,  not  only  of  its  author,  but  also  of 
'  See  op.  cit.,  p.  161, 


,K 


THE  SEVENTEENTH  AND  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURIES    253 

most  of  its  expounders.  It  is  a  singular  illustration  of  the 
inability  of  great  men  to  estimate  truly  their  own  work  that 
Bengel,  who  made  a  Church  almanac  out  of  the  poetical 
imagery  of  the  Apocalypse,  attached  to  this  greater  value 
than  to  any  other  part  of  his  commentary.  Posterity  has 
judged  otherwise. 

Besides  Bengel  there  arose  no  other  great  commentator 
in  the  eighteenth  century.  The  next  illustrious  biblical 
work  was  in  the  department  of  historical  criticism,^  and 
was  done  by  Astruc  in  France  (1684-1766),  by  Semler  and 
Ernesti  (1707-1781)  in  Germany.  In  his  Conjectures  on 
Genesis,  published  anonymously  in  1753,  Astruc,  who  was  a 
professor  of  medicine  in  Paris  and  physician  to  Louis  XV, 
set  forth  the  now  universally  accepted  documentary  theory 
of  the  origin  of  that  book.  From  the  repetitions  in  the 
text,  from  the  use  of  the  divine  names,  from  the  differences 
between  Genesis  and  other  books  of  the  Pentateuch,  and 
from  the  chronological  disorder,  he  was  led  to  the  recogni- 
tion of  two  chief  sources  and  two  more  of  secondary  im- 
portance. In  all  he  postulated  twelve  documentary  sources, 
but  allowed  that  the  limits  of  a  number  of  them  are  not 
fixed  .^ 

Of  these  ancient  sources  it  is  interesting  to  notice  that 
Astruc  thought  that  some  may  have  been  outside  of  Hebrew 
history  ^  —  a  conjecture  whose  truth  has  been  abundantly 
illustrated  in  later  times. 

'  Schultens  (1686-1750),  by  the  cultivation  of  Hebrew  through  Arabic 
and  other  cognate  dialects,  gave  a  highly  important  turn  to  the  philologi- 
cal study  of  the  Old  Testament. 

^  See  Conjectures  sur  la  Cenese,  chapters  1-3. 

^  See  op.  ciL,  p.  322. 


2  54  THE   INTERPRETATIOxN    OF   THE    BIBLE 

The  contribution  of  Semler  was  not  so  sharply  defined 
as  that  of  Astruc.  It  was  a  spirit  rather  than  a  new  hy- 
pothesis —  a  spirit  of  doubt  regarding  the  things  once 
beheved,  a  spirit  also  of  freedom  in  theological  investiga- 
tion. In  his  opposition  to  tradition  and  dogma,  he  was  a 
rationahst.  In  regard  to  the  function  of  doubt,  he  was  a 
Cartesian,  and  his  conception  of  the  Bible  as  a  book  whose 
various  parts  are  of  unequal  value  —  a  conception  star- 
tlingly  hostile  to  the  traditional  view  —  was  in  line  mth  the 
thought  of  Spinoza.  His  treatise  on  the  Hteral  interpreta- 
tion of  the  New  Testament  ^  marked  an  advance  on  the 
exegetical  principles  of  his  predecessors  in  the  clearness 
with  which  it  set  forth  the  necessity  of  reading  a  text  in  the 
Hght  of  the  times  with  which  it  deals,  the  necessity,  also,  of 
discovering  the  historically  important  moment  in  a  narra- 
tive and  of  subordinating  minor  points. 

Ernesti  was  the  first  to  set  forth  in  an  impressive  manner 
that  principle  which  gave  offence  to  Lord  Bacon,  viz.,  that 
the  sense  of  the  Bible  is  to  be  ascertained  as  that  of  any 
other  book.^  Therefore  he  set  aside  the  distinction  of 
Francke  between  the  literal  sense  and  the  sense  of  the 
letter,  and  rejected  the  view  of  Cocceius  that  the  words  of 
the  sacred  writings  signify  all  that  they  can  (quantum 
possint)?  Yet  the  work  of  Ernesti  was  not  altogether  free 
from  erroneous  presuppositions.  Thus  he  denied  that 
there  can  be  real  contradictions  in  the  biblical  writings,  on 

*  Apparatus  ad  lUeralem  Novi  Testamenti  inter pretalionem,  1767. 
^  See  Institutio  interpretis  N.  T.,  editio  altera,  1765,  p.  12. 

*  See  op.  cit.,  p.  11:  Nullus  alius  sensus  est  nisi  grammaticus,  eum- 
que  grammatici  tradunt. 


THE  SEVENTEENTH  AND  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURIES     255 

the  ground  that  the  writers  were  inspired.^  Apparently  he 
did  not  see  that  this  presupposition  was  at  variance  with 
his  fundamental  principle. 

In  the  last  half  of  the  eighteenth  century  biblical  study 
was  permanently  enriched  by  the  labors  of  three  men 
who  were,  first  of  all,  literary  critics  and  men  of  poetic 
sensibility.  One  of  them  —  the  most  fascinating  of 
German  rationalists  —  gave  utterance  to  a  multitude  of 
acute  criticisms  on  the  writings  and  the  religion  of  the  New 
Testament,  some  of  which  have  not  yet  been  duly  appre- 
ciated in  the  Church;  the  other  two  virtually  opened 
for  the  first  time  a  splendid  department  of  the  Hebrew 
Scriptures,  and  contributed  in  no  slight  degree  to  secure 
for  the  Old  Testament  its  true  position  among  the  master- 
pieces of  the  world's  literature. 

The  first  of  these  men,  Gotthold  Ephraim  Lessing  (1729- 
1781),  is  known  among  us  rather  by  his  dramas  and  essays 
than  by  his  criticisms  in  the  department  of  New  Testament 
literature  and  religion,  though  in  this,  also,  his  thought 
was  brilliant  and  suggestive.  We  are  concerned  with  that 
criticism  here  chiefly  as  it  bears  upon  the  interpretation  of 
Scripture. 

Lessing  was  perhaps  the  first  to  gain  a  hearing  for  the 
view  that  neither  the  miracles  of  the  New  Testament  nor 
the  prophecies  of  the  Old  are  a  proof  of  Christianity.^ 
Regarding  the  latter  point  he  appears  to  have  gone  too  far, 
rejecting  the  good  with  the  bad,  yet  his  discussion  of  the 

*  See  op.  cit.,  p.  15.    This  statement  appears  to  be  modified  by  that  on 

P-73- 

^  See  his  Sdmmtliche  Werke,  edited  by  Karl  Lachmann,  13,  3-8. 


256  THE   INTERPRETATION   OF   THE   BIBLE 

subject  was  the  most  stimulating  that  had  been  heard  up  to 
his  day. 

Lessing  was  the  first,  so  far  as  I  am  aware,  to  bring  out 
the  truth  that  the  objections  which  reason  may  bring  against 
the  Bible  are  not  necessarily  objections  to  the  biblical 
rehgion.^  Christianity  existed  before  the  New  Testament 
was  written,  and  might  therefore,  conceivably,  continue 
without  it.  It  is  not  true  because  the  evangelists  and 
apostles  taught  it,  but  they  taught  it  because  it  is  true. 

In  his  criticism  of  the  Gospels,  it  is  now  plain  that 
Lessing  was  often  in  error,  but  also  plain  that  he  was  often 
in  the  right.  He  seems  to  have  had  no  conception  of  the 
pecuHar  character  of  the  Fourth  Gospel,'  and  few  will 
agree  with  him  that  Jesus  expected  the  Levitical  law  to  be 
permanently  observed  in  his  Kingdom,^  or  that  this  King- 
dom was  to  be  earthly,  in  the  thought  of  Jesus.*  But  he 
was  the  first  to  suggest  that  an  important  distinction  is  to 
be  made  between  the  teaching  of  the  apostles  and  that  of 
Jesus ;  ^  the  first  to  suggest  that  the  words  of  Jesus  afford 
no  basis  for  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity ;  ^  and  the  first  to 
advance  arguments  more  or  less  valid  against  the  genu- 
ineness of  Matt.  28 :  19.^ 

The  men  who  turned  an  entirely  new  page  in  the  history 
of  interpretation  were  Lowth  (171 0-1787)  and  Herder 
(i 744-1803),  the  former  a  bishop  of  the  English  Church, 
the  latter  court-preacher  at  Weimar.  Lowth's  Lectures 
on  Hebrew  Poetry,  given   at  Oxford,  were  published  in 

'  See  op.  ciL,  p.  99.  ^  See  op.  ciL,  p.  238. 

'  See  op.  ciL,  pp.  245  f.  ■*  See  op.  cit.,  pp.  277-279. 

*  See  op.  cit.,  p.  223.   °  See  op.  cit.,  p.  238.    '  See  op.  cit.,  p.  252. 


THE  SEVENTEENTH  AND  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURIES     257 

1753,  and  Herder's  Spirit  of  Hebrew  Poetry  was  published 
in  1782. 

The  English  writer  was  hampered  in  his  work  by  his 
view  of  inspiration.  Hebrew  poetry,  he  thought,  "was  not 
so  much  the  offspring  of  human  genius  as  an  emanation 
from  heaven."  But,  naturally,  if  a  poem  is  regarded  as 
primarily  "an  emanation  from  heaven,"  there  can  scarcely 
be  a  free  criticism  of  it,  neither  can  it  have  an  absorbing 
human  interest  as  a  literary  product.  Yet  it  was  much  to 
have  called  attention  to  the  poetry  of  the  Old  Testament,  as 
bishop  Lowth  did,  and  to  have  asserted,  however  imper- 
fectly, its  claim  to  be  considered  as  beautiful  and  sublime 
literature.^ 

Herder  was  rarely  gifted  both  with  literary  insight  and 
power  of  literary  expression.  To  him  Hebrew  poetry  was 
a  fresh  divine  revelation  that  stirred  his  soul  to  its  depths, 
and  made  him  an  enthusiastic  interpreter.  He  was  free, 
too,  from  dogmatic  bias.  He  moved  through  the  Scriptures 
with  the  delight  and  wonder  and  glad  sense  of  liberty  with 
which  a  normal  soul  attuned  to  Nature  moves  through  the 
fields  or  woods  in  the  freshness  of  some  June  morning. 
The  Bible,  he  said,  is  a  garden,  not  a  prison;  a  world  of 
change  and  fruitfulness,  not  a  workhouse.  It  was  written 
by  men  and  for  men,  and  must  be  read  as  a  human  book.- 
Nature-poetry,  such  as  we  have  in  Job  and  elsewhere  in  the 
Old  Testament,  is  the  beautiful  interpreter  of  Nature  as 
God  made  it.^     It  enlarges  the  heart  as  also  the  mind; 

^  Milton,  in  his  Tract  Against  Prelacy,  speaks  of  the  incomparable 
lyrics  of  the  Bible,  but,  unfortunately,  neverwrote  at  lengthen  the  subject. 
^  See  Sdmmtliche  Werke,  edited  by  Suphan,  11.  5-10. 
^  See  op.  cit.  11.  292. 
s 


258  THE   INTERPRETATION    OF   THE    BIBLE 

makes  this  quiet  and  observing,  that  active,  free,  and  glad. 
It  creates  love,  appreciation,  and  sympathy  with  all  that 
lives.  Herder  was,  I  think,  the  first  to  point  out  the  poetic 
character  of  the  early  chapters  of  Genesis,  and  thus  to 
point  at  last  to  a  satisfactory  interpretation  of  them.^ 
He  regarded  the  book  of  Jonah  also  as  a  poem,  and  asked 
the  pertinent  question  :  "If  it  is  beautiful,  fit  and  profitable 
as  a  poem,  why  should  we  rack  our  brains  to  construe  it  as 
history  ?"=^ 

We  are  now  come  to  the  limit  of  the  period  which  we  set 
out  to  consider,  and  shall  seek  to  indicate  in  a  few  closing 
words,  not  the  value  of  the  normal  type  of  exegesis  which 
left  its  stamp  on  a  multitude  of  now  mostly  forgotten  books, 
but  the  steps  of  progress,  fewer  in  number  than  the  decades 
of  the  long  period  itself,  by  means  of  which  we  ourselves 
are  the  richer  and  more  assured  in  the  knowledge  of  the 
truth. 

The  first  sign  of  exegetical  progress  in  the  seventeenth 
century  was  a  reaction  against  the  tyranny  of  dogma,  and 
this  reaction  was  promoted  throughout  the  entire  period, 
not  only  by  the  results  of  the  most  eminent  biblical 
scholarship,  but  also  by  philosophy.  The  materials  for 
the  explanation  and  illustration  of  Scripture  were  largely 
increased  in  this  century,  especially  through  the  investiga- 
tion of  the  rabbinical  literature.  The  close  of  the  seven- 
teenth century  saw  the  beginning  of  a  scientific  historical 
criticism  in  the  department  of  biblical  introduction  and 

'See  op.  cit.,  10.  16;    11.  381  f. 
^  See  op.  cit.,  10.  102. 


THE  SEVENTEENTH  AND  EIGHTEENTH  CENTURIES     259 

saw  the  erection  of  the  first  conspicuous  monument  of 
purely  hterary  criticism. 

The  eighteenth  century  was  distinguished  by  its  work 
for  a  purer  text  of  the  New  Testament,  by  the  beginning 
of  a  formal  science  of  interpretation,  by  the  production  of 
one  of  the  few  great  commentaries,  by  the  establishment 
of  the  documentary  hypothesis  to  explain  the  origin  of 
Genesis,  by  the  weakening  of  the  traditional  doctrine  of 
inspiration,  by  general  progress  in  the  rationalization  and 
humanization  of  Scripture,  and,  last  of  all,  by  the  discovery 
that  the  Bible  is  not  only  a  divine  guide  for  the  heart  and 
the  will,  but  is  also  a  thesaurus  of  immortal  poetry,  which 
fascinates  and  uplifts  the  imagination. 


CHAPTER  X 

THE   SCIENTIFIC  ERA  OF   BIBLICAL   INTERPRETATION 

At  the  close  of  the  eighteenth  century  the  science  of 
biblical  interpretation  had  reached  the  foot-hills  of  the 
"promised  land,"  but  no  one  saw  or  could  see  the 
heights  that  rose  in  majesty  just  ahead.  The  progress 
of  the  past  three  centuries — yes,  of  the  past  thirteen — was 
to  be  more  than  dupHcated  before  the  nineteenth  century 
should  have  given  way  to  the  twentieth.  A  simple  enu- 
meration of  the  discoveries  affecting  Scripture  interpreta- 
tion, and  of  the  changes  in  the  dominant  conceptions  of  the 
Bible  which  were  to  come  in  the  next  hundred  years,  would 
have  seemed  to  the  men  of  that  day  stranger  than  fiction, 
and  by  the  great  majority  even  of  thinking  people  would 
doubtless  have  been  regarded  as  heralding  the  final  and 
irremediable  collapse  of  true  religion. 

The  outlook  for  progress  in  the  biblical  world  at  the 
beginning  of  the  nineteenth  century  continued  essentially 
unchanged  for  about  a  generation.  Not  that  the  period 
was  barren  and  without  promise,  for  De  Wette  (f  1849) 
and  Schleiermacher  (f  1834)  in  Germany,  and  Coleridge 
(t  1834)  in  England,  were  forces  as  stimulating  to  a  better 
knowledge  of  revelation  as  Lessing  and  Herder  had  been 

260 


SCIENTIFIC  ERA  OF  BIBLICAL  INTERPRETATION     261 

at  the  close  of  the  eighteenth  century/  while  Gesenius' 
Hebrew  Lexicon  and  Grammar  (1812,  1813)  and  Winer's 
Grammar  of  New  Testament  Greek  (1821)  marked  a  great 
advance  on  all  similar  works  of  the  earlier  time ;  but  still 
the  period  as  compared  with  the  following  was  one  of 
preparation  rather  than  of  fulfilment.  In  the  second 
quarter  of  the  century  arose  the  great  critical  movement 
in  Germany,  led  by  Strauss  (f  1874)  and  F.  C,  Baur 
(t  i860),  a  movement  destructive  of  tradition  and  pro- 
ductive of  an  immense  and  more  scientific  activity  in  the 
investigation  of  Scripture.  In  the  same  years  began  the 
Romance  of  the  Spade,  the  uncovering  of  long-buried  civ- 
ilizations in  the  valleys  of  the  Nile  and  the  Euphrates.^ 
In  the  third  quarter  of  the  century  came  the  message  of 
Natural  Science,  notably  in  England,  which  indeed  at  the 
time  appeared  to  be  more  dangerous  to  the  Bible  than  even 
German  criticism,  but  which  has  nevertheless  entered 
deeply  and  helpfully  into  all  subsequent  literature  of  inter- 
pretation. In  the  last  quarter  of  the  nineteenth  century 
and  in  the  opening  years  of  our  own,  there  has  been  a  wide 
and  fruitful  application  of  the  new  principles  to  the  inter- 
pretation of  Scripture. 

As  one  surveys  this  modern  era  of  biblical  study  which 
has  continued  now  about  three  quarters  of  a  century,  two 
general  facts  of  great  though  unequal  significance  are  seen 

'  De  Wette's  Beitrdge  zur  Einleitung  ins  A  T.,  were  published  in  1806- 
1807,  Schleiermacher's  Reden  ilher  die  Religion  in  1799,  and  Coleridge's 
Aids  to  Reflection  in  1825. 

^  The  palace  of  Sargon  was  discovered  by  Botta  in  1843,  that  of  Shal- 
maneser  by  Layard  in  1846,  and  Lepsius  in  the  same  decade  opened  a 
large  number  of  tombs  at  Memphis. 


262  THE   INTERPRETATION   OF  THE   BIBLE 

to  characterize  it.  These  facts  are  new  freedom  of  re- 
;  search  and  new  points  of  view.  The  new  freedom  has  not 
been  equally  shared  by  all  Protestant  lands.  Germany, 
which  has  led  all  other  countries  in  biblical  research,  has 
had,  as  we  should  expect,  the  greatest  measure  of  freedom ; 
then  follow  Holland,  England,  France,  and  America. 
In  general,  there  has  been  an  increase  of  freedom  for  bib- 
lical scholarship  as  the  century  has  passed.  A  modern 
Strauss  or  Scherer  would  not  lose  his  university  chair  in 
Germany  or  France;^  a  second  Bishop  Colenso  could 
freely  set  forth  his  views  within  the  English  Church  with- 
out fear  of  removal ;  ^  and  in  the  United  States,  at  least  in 
the  greater  universities,  scholars  are  unhampered  in  the 
pursuit  of  truth.  Outside  the  Church  and  the  academic 
sphere,  freedom  of  utterance  on  religious  as  on  pohtical 
subjects  has  come  to  be  nearly  absolute  in  Protestant 
lands.  Here,  indeed,  the  word  of  Phillips  Brooks  spoken  in 
1883  is  true,  that  now  for  the  first  time  in  many  centuries 
the  hand  of  external  restraint  is  absolutely  taken  off  from 
i  theological  thinking.  But  not  yet  is  this  word  true  where 
its  truth  would  be  of  the  highest  value  to  men,  viz.,  in 
institutions  for  the  training  of  the  ministry.^     But  in  spite 

'  Strauss  was  called  to  Zurich  in  1836,  but  was  not  allowed  to  teach. 
Scherer  resigned  his  chair  at  Geneva,  in  1849,  on  account  of  his  view  of 
inspiration. 

'  Colenso,  bishop  of  Capetown,  was  removed  from  oflBce  in  1863  for 
his  views  on  the  Pentateuch.  In  1864  the  Privy  Council  of  Great  Britain 
gave  a  deliverance  which  established  theological  liberty  for  clergymen 
in  the  Church  of  England. 

^  Within  ten  years  after  the  utterance  of  Phillips  Brooks  the  Presby- 
terian Church  suspended  from  the  ministry  her  best-known  O.  T.  scholar, 
Professor  Briggs,  and  removed  Professor  H.  P.  Smith  from  his  chair 


SCIENTIFIC  ERA  OF  BIBLICAL  INTERPRETATION     263 

of  denominational  narrowness  and  that  spirit  of  persecu- 
tion which,  when  backed  by  ecclesiastical  authority,  still 
hinders  the  progress  of  truth,  it  is  perfectly  obvious  that 
there  has  been  greater  freedom  for  bibhcal  study  in  the 
past  half  century  than  in  any  former  period  since  bibhcal 
study  began.  That  this  fact  has  been  essential  to  recent 
progress  is  almost  self-evident. 

J     The  other  fact  that  has  fundamentally  affected  recent 
j// biblical  interpretation  is  the  establishment  of  new  points 

j  of  view.     These  are  two  —  the  point  of  view  of  Natural 

» Science  and  the  point  of  view  of  Comparative  Religion. 

j  The  former  was  effectively  pressed  upon  thoughtful  stu- 
dents of  the  Bible  by  the  publication  of  Darwin's  Origin 

\  of  Species  in  1859,  and  the  latter  by  George  Smith's  dis- 
covery of  the  Assyrian  Flood-tablets  in  1872.  From  these 
two  new  points  of  view  have  proceeded  the  most  radical 
external  influences  that  are  aiding  Historical  Criticism. 

The  essential  thought  of  Mr.  Darwin  was  very  soon 
applied  in  the  religious  sphere.  When  the  brief  period  of 
consternation  had  passed,  the  conception  of  Evolution  as 
a  method  of  divine  action  was  welcomed,  yes  seized,  as 
affording  a  more  adequate  solution  of  many  problems. 
Men  began  to  speak  of  the  evolution  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment as  Uterature,  the  evolution  of  religion,  the  evolution 

at  Lane  Seminary ;  and  in  the  next  decade  the  Methodist  Church  removed 
Professor  Mitchell  from  his  chair  at  Boston  University,  and  the  Board  of 
Chicago  Seminary  (Congregational)  removed  its  professor  of  N.  T. 
Interpretation.  The  removal  of  these  men  was  due  in  every  case,  not 
to  any  disloyalty  to  the  Word  of  God,  but  solely  to  their  departure, 
in  varying  degrees,  from  the  doctrines  of  the  several  denominations  to 
which  they  belonged. 


264  THE   INTERPRETATION   OF   THE   BIBLE 

of  Christianity,  the  evolution  of  the  conscience,  and  so 
forth.  At  the  World's  Parliament  of  Religions  in  Chicago 
in  1893,  Henr}'  Drummond  *  could  declare  without  contra- 
diction that  "evolution  as  a  category  of  thought  was  the 
supreme  word  of  the  nineteenth  century";  and  nine  years 
later  an  Oxford  professor  wrote  that  "no  section  of  the 
Church  that  counts  for  much  now  denies  the  facts  of 
Geology,  and  Darwinism  is  no  longer  regarded  as  the  foe 
of  the  Christian  faith."  -  The  uniformity  of  Nature  has 
come  to  be  looked  upon  as  an  axiom.^ 

This  point  of  view  of  Natural  Science  was  in  accord  with 
the  literary  and  historical  criticism  of  Scripture,  Natural 
Science,  though  a  foe  of  unscientific  traditional  theology, 
was  an  ally  of  Criticism,  and  hence  from  the  first  exercised 
on  it  and  through  it  a  potent  influence. 

The  second  new  point  of  view,  that  of  Comparative 
Religion,  though  by  no  means  independent  of  the  hypothe- 
sis of  evolution,  has,  nevertheless,  its  own  place  and  worth. 
Tiele  puts  the  beginning  of  this  science  about  the  middle 
of  the  nineteenth  centur}^,  but  it  was  more  than  twenty 
years  later  before  it  came  into  vital  contact  with  biblical 
interpretation.  In  the  cuneiform  tablets  which  had  been 
accumulating  in  the  British  Museum  since  the  days  of 

'  See  The  World's  Parliament  of  Religions,  2.  13.  16.  The  statement 
of  Drummond  that  Science  gave  the  scientific  method  to  religion  is  hardly 
historical.  See  Smith,  Life  of  Henry  Drummond,  p.  244.  That  method 
was  developed  among  scholars  of  the  Bible. 

^  See  Contentio  Veritatis,  1902,  Preface. 

'  See  Lodge,  Hibberl  Journal,  i.  2.  On  the  theological  significance 
of  our  enlarged  view  of  Nature,  see  W.  N.  Clarke,  Christian  Theology, 
ninth  edition,  1901,  pp.  50-51. 


SCIENTIFIC  ERA  OF  BIBLICAL  INTERPRETATION      265 

Rawlinson  and  Layard,  there  were  discovered  Assyrian 
parallels  of  certain  passages  of  Genesis  which  dated  from 
a  time  long  prior  to  the  composition  of  that  book.  This 
was  the  opening  of  a  new  and  most  important  chapter  in 
the  history  of  biblical  interpretation.  From  the  discovery 
of  these  Flood-tablets  by  George  Smith  down  to  the  present 
day,  the  stream  of  information  flowing  from  the  literature 
of  ancient  Assyria,  Babylonia,  and  Egypt  has  steadily  in- 
creased. The  study  of  other  rehgions,  as  those  of  Persia 
and  India,  has  not  been  without  its  influence  on  the  inter- 
pretation of  the  Bible,  but  from  the  nature  of  the  case  no 
religions  and  no  civilizations  could  be  of  so  great  value  to 
the  interpreter  of  the  Old  Testament  as  the  religions  and 
civilizations  of  those  peoples  with  whom  the  Hebrews 
stood  in  close  contact  and  whose  history  can  be  traced 
back  many  centuries  before  the  time  of  Abraham.^ 

We  proceed  now  from  this  general  survey  of  the  unique 
factors  that  have  entered  as  a  new  leaven  into  our  modern 
interpretation  of  Scripture  to  a  somewhat  narrower  view 
of  the  subject.  It  will  be  the  aim  in  what  follows  to  con- 
sider the  new  method  of  interpretation  at  work  and  in  its 
more  comprehensive  aspects.  Not  to  lose  one's  self  in  the 
details  of  this  modern  era  of  interpretation,  of  which  the 
mass  is  almost  infinite,  but  to  keep  aloft  where  events  and 
forces  can  be  studied  in  their  broader  relations  to  each 
other,  seems  plainly  the  end  to  be  kept  in  view. 

1  Professor  Jastrow  says  that  "  an  understanding  of  the  Hebrew  reli- 
gion is  impossible  without  a  constant  consideration  of  the  religion  and 
culture  that  were  developed  in  the  Euphrates  valley."  Hastings'  Bible 
Dictionary,  article  "Religion  of  Babylonia." 


266  THE    INTERPRETATION    OF   THE   BIBLE 

The  newmethod  of  interpretation  is  Historical  Criticism.* 
J  /Its  sole  aim  is  to  get  at  the  facts  and  to  learn  their  meaning. 
/  It  is  a  scientific  method,  for  it  involves,  as  Adeney  has  said, 
'  "a  rigorous  exclusion  of  mere  assumptions,  a  full  and  care- 
ful induction  of  all  the  evidence,  a  strict,  unbiassed  process 
of  arriving  at  conclusions,  and  an  orderly  arrangement 
and  classification  of  the  knowledge  thus  attained."  ^ 
This  method  is  so  unlike  that  which  had  prevailed  for 
centuries,  and  has  withal  such  an  uncompromising  aspect 
and  tone  in  relation  to  tradition,  that  it  has  gained  its 
victories  only  in  the  face  of  much  opposition.  When  it 
began  to  be  known  in  England  a  half  century  ago,  it  was 
one  of  the  forces  that  led  to  the  Tractarian  Movement  with 
its  exaltation  of  ecclesiastical  authority  in  its  most  abso- 
lute form.^  Near  the  close  of  the  nineteenth  century  a  dis- 
tinguished president  of  a  New  England  college  spoke  of 
criticism  as  "a  great  movement  against  the  trustworthiness 
of  the   ancient   Scriptures."  ^     And   still  later,   in    1905, 

^  The  theory  of  interpretation  (Hermeneutics)  has  been  practically 
reduced  to  the  one  precept  of  Jowett  (Essays  and  Reviews,  p.  416): 
"Interpret  the  Scripture  like  any  other  book."  This  principle  is  funda- 
mental in  the  hermeneutics  of  Schleiermacher  {Sdmmtliche  Werke,  Band 
7)  and  of  Immer  {Hermeneutik  des  N.  T.,  1873),  the  two  chief  writers  on 
the  subject  during  the  past  century. 

^  A  Century's  Progress  in  Religious  Thought  and  Life,  1901,  p.  59. 
Comp.  Briggs,  The  Study  of  Holy  Scripture,  1899,  p.  78. 

^  Newman,  the  leader  of  the  Tractarian  Movement,  stood  at  the  farthest 
distance  from  Historical  Criticism.  This  is  well  illustrated  when  he 
claims  that  the  miraculous  oil  of  St.  Walburga  still  flows,  and  also  when 
he  says  that  after  he  entered  the  Roman  Church  he  had  no  difficulty  in 
believing  the  doctrine  of  Transubslantiation.  See  Apologia  pro  vita 
sua,  pp.  251,  300  f. 

*  Bartlett,  The  Veracity  of  the  Hexatcuch,  1897,  Preface. 


J 


SCIENTIFIC  ERA  OF  BIBLICAL  INTERPRETATION      267 

Sir  Robert  Anderson,  in  a  widely  circulated  book  for  which 
the  bishop  of  Durham  wrote  the  Preface,  characterized 
Higher  Criticism  as  "a  sceptical  crusade  against  the  Bible, 
tending  to  lower  it  to  the  level  of  a  purely  human  book," 
and  declared  that  it  "  systematically  ignores  the  science  of 
evidence."  ^  We  have  had  in  the  United  States  the  spec- 
tacle of  a  numerous  conference  of  ministers  and  teachers 
of  theology  gathered  together  for  the  purpose  of  protesting 
against  Higher  Criticism.^  Such  protests,^  however,  rarely 
win  the  approval  of  a  scholar.  They  appeal  mainly  to 
those  whose  devotion  to  the  Bible  contains  a  large  element 
of  unwholesome  sentiment  or  downright  ignorance,  or  both 
together. 

But  the  critical  method,  though  spoken  against  and  even 
forcibly  opposed,  has  been  accepted  by  the  author  of  nearly 
every  marked  contribution  to  biblical  interpretation  dur- 
ing the  past  three  decades  in  all  Protestant  lands.  It  has 
rightly  been  recognized  as  the  chief  "charism"  of  our  age,* 
and  the  special  gift  of  God  to  the  modern  Church.^  "His- 
torical Criticism,"  said  W.  Robertson  Smith,  "is  a  reality 
and  a  force,  because  it  unfolds  a  living  and  consistent  picture 

'  The  Bible  and  Modern  Criticism,  fifth  edition,  1905,  pp.  43,  254.  The 
author  regards  Harnack  as  an  "arch-heretic,"  finds  "blasphemy"  in 
Schmiedel's  article  on  Jesus  in  the  Ency.  Bibl.,  and  declares  that  it  is 
"shockingly  profane"  to  say  that  Abraham  was  a  "lunar  hero." 

^  See  Anti-Higher  Criticism,  1894,  to  which  volume  even  Professor  ^ 
W.  H.  Green  contributed. 

^  To  these  must  now  be  added  the  Pope's  Encyclical  against  "  Mod- 
ernism," September,  1907. 

*  Delitzsch,  quoted  by  Grant  in  the  American  Journal  of  Theology, 
January,  1902. 

^  Ryle,  The  Canon  of  the  Old  Testament,  p.  14. 


268  THE   INTERPRETATION   OF   THE   BIBLE 

of  the  Old  Dispensation,"  ^  and  what  he  said  of  criticism 
in  relation  to  the  Old  Testament  is  none  the  less  true  in 
relation  to  the  New. 

This  scientific  method  has  at  length  raised  Bible  study 
out  of  its  provinciahsm,  and  has  opened  it  to  all  light  from 
every  quarter.  With  the  aid  of  its  new  allies  —  Natural 
Science  and  Comparative  Rehgion — it  is  slowly  reconstruct- 
ing, from  its  foundation,  not  only  our  conception  of  the 
origin  of  the  Bible,  but  also  every  one  of  the  great  doctrines 
of  the  Church.  Since  we  are  in  the  midst  of  this  process 
of  reconstruction,  it  is  impossible  to  record  final  results, 
at  least  on  most  subjects;  but  we  can  note  the  trend  of 
thought,  and  can  see  what  definite  gains  the  new  interpre- 
tation has  made,  and  what  problems  are  emerging  into  view. 

It  is  to  be  noted,  in  the  first  place,  that  Criticism  has 
wrought  a  profound  transformation  in  the  general  concep- 
tion of  the  origin  and  character  of  the  Bible,  a  transforma- 
tion as  radical  as  that  which  the  conception  of  the  Church 
underwent  at  the  beginning  of  the  sixteenth  century.  It 
is  coming  to  be  recognized  widely  and  clearly,  what  Grotius 
perceived  long  ago,  that  revelation  is  not  to  be  identified 
with  the  Bible,  that  it  belongs  rather  in  the  lives  of  the  men 
who  produced  the  Scriptures,  and  that  the  Bible  is  sacred 
because  the  underlying  history  was  sacred.^     Historical 

'  The  O.  T.  in  the  Jewish  Church,  second  edition,  1902,  Preface. 

^  See  Bruce,  Apologetics,  pp.  300  f . ;  Abbott,  The  Evolution  of  Chris- 
tianity, p.  66:  "The  Bible  is  the  History  of  the  Growth  of  man's  con- 
sciousness of  God";  Sabatier,  The  Religions  of  Authority  and  the  Reli- 
gion of  the  Spirit,  p.  208.  Sabatier's  idea  of  revelation  —  "God  carrying 
on  the  progressive  education  of  humanity  " —  is  like  that  of  Lessing.  Also 
Ewald,  Revelation,  English  translation,  1884,  p.  432. 


SCIENTIFIC  ERA  OF  BIBLICAL  INTERPRETATION      269 

Criticism  does  not  deny  that  the  Bible  makes  us  acquainted 
with  a  true  revelation  of  God,  but  it  teaches  that  we  can  no 
more  identify  the  book  and  the  revelation  than  we  could 
identify  the  book  and  the  spiritual  experiences  of  Isaiah 
and  Paul  and  the  rest. 

Not  only  has  revelation  been  separated  from  the  Bible, 
but  the  idea  of  revelation  has  grown  wider  as  the  impartial 
study  of  other  religions  has  progressed/  We  are  coming  to 
think  of  our  Bible  as  the  supreme  part  of  the  great  Bible  of 
humanity,  even  as  we  are  beginning  to  see  in  the  Gospel 
of  Jesus  the  supreme  part  of  our  Bible.  We  recognize  that 
the  Bible,  Old  Testament  and  New,  teaches  that  God 
has  revealed  himself  to  other  peoples  besides  the  Hebrews, 
and  therefore  that  religions  cannot  be  divided  into  the  true 
and  the  false.  The  difference  between  the  Bible  and  other 
sacred  books,  wide  though  it  is,  is  yet  one  of  degree,  not 
one  of  kind.^ 

The  content  of  the  word  "inspiration"  is  no  less  changed 
than  that  of  the  term  "revelation,"  and  changed  primarily 

*  Pusey's  Declaration,  which  affirms  that  the  Scriptures  are  the  word 
of  God  rather  than  contain  it,  was,  in  1864,  signed  by  eleven  thousand 
clergymen  in  England  and  Wales  out  of  twenty-five  thousand  to  whom 
it  had  been  sent.  These  figures  would  be  greatly  changed  were  a  vote 
taken  there  to-day.  See  Carpenter,  Interpretation  in  the  Nineteenth  Cen- 
tury, pp.  38-39. 

Already  in  Essays  and  Reviews  (i860)  this  thought  was  expressed  by 
Jowett,  and  since  then  it  has  come  into  ever  clearer  recognition. 

^  Impartial  reading  of  other  sacred  books  side  by  side  with  the  Bible, 
or  of  some  writings  of  the  Greeks  and  Romans  not  regarded  as  sacred, 
affords  the  best  confirmation  of  the  above  statement. 

Comp.  Simon,  The  Bible  an  Outgrowth  of  Theocratic  Life,  1886,  p.  39; 
Matheson,  The  Distinctive  Messages  of  the  Old  Religions,  1893. 


270  THE    INTERPRETATION    OF   THE   BIBLE 

in  consequence  of  a  more  scientific  study  of  the  Scriptures 
themselves.  If  revelation  is  seen  to  be  a  flexible  term,  so 
also  is  inspiration.  If  there  are  degrees  of  fulness  in  the 
revelation  of  God  to  different  peoples,  it  is  equally  obvious 
that  there  are  degrees  of  inspiration.  We  judge  of  the 
alleged  revelation  by  the  writings  which  make  it  known, 
and  by  the  writings,  also,  we  judge  of  the  inspiration  of  the 
writers.  For  inspiration,  it  is  now  widely  agreed,^  doe^ 
belong  to  the  writer,  not  to  the  writing.  Whether  any  clear 
distinction  is  to  be  made  between  revelation  and  inspiration 
is  not  yet  settled.^  They  are  at  least  close  correlatives, 
parts  of  one  and  the  same  spiritual  process.  But  the  im- 
portant points  on  which  scholars  are  coming  into  agreement 
are,  first,  that  there  are  degrees  of  inspiration  in  the  differ- 
ent writers  of  Scripture,  ranging  from  the  very  low  to  the 
very  high ;  and  second,  that  the  test  of  inspiration  is  spirit- 
ual experience.  The  thought  of  Cc^leridge  —  whsit  finds  me 
is  thereby  shown  to  be  from  the  Holy  Spirit,  what  finds  me 
at  the  greatest  depths  of  my  being  is  most  fully  inspired^ — 
indicates  the  most  important  trend  of  the  modern  mind 
on  this  subject.  It  has  had  its  most  striking  recent  ex- 
pression in  the  words  of  INIartineau:  "We  never  acknowl- 
edge authority  till  that  which  speaks  to  us  from  another 

'  See  e.g.,  Sanday,  Inspiratio?!,  fifth  edition,  1903,  p.  399  (the  critical 
view  of  inspiration  makes  it  something  "  living^') ;  Fairbairn,  The  Place 
of  Christ  in  Modern  Theology,  1903,  pp.  497  f. 

This  view  of  inspiration  accords  with  what  has  been  called  "the  most 
fundamental  theological  thought  of  the  age."  Comp.  King,  Reconstruction 
in  Theology,  1901,  p.  155. 

^  See  Schultz,  Christian  Apologetics,  English  translation  by  Alfred  B. 
Nichols,  1905,  p.  77. 

'  Confessions  of  an  Inquiring  Spirit,  1840,  Letters  I-II. 


SCIENTIFIC  ERA  OF  BIBLICAL  INTERPRETATION     27 1 

and  higher  strikes  home  and  wakes  the  echoes  in  our- 
selves." ^ 

This  conception  of  varying  degrees  of  inspiration  is  not 
altogether  new.  We  have  seen  in  an  earlier  chapter  that 
the  ancient  Jews  made  such  a  distinction,  and  have  noted 
it  here  and  there  in  the  history  of  the  Christian  Church. 
The  new  element  in  the  modern  conception  is  its  spirituality. 
Inspiration  is  carried  back  beyond  the  material  writings, 
where  it  used  to  stop,  into  human  minds  and  hearts ;  and 
these  among  the  Hebrews,  as  among  other  peoples,  were 
unequally  receptive  of  divine  influences. 
.  A  natural  and  inevitable  conclusion  from  historical  study 
1/  is  the  fallibility  of  the  Bible.^  Criticism  did  not  set  out, 
as  did  Mr.  Huxley  in  a  certain  volume  of  essays,^  with  the 
avowed  purpose  to  destroy  the  doctrine  of  the  infallibility 
of  Scripture.  It,  of  course,  proceeded  in  its  work  quite 
independently  of  this  doctrine,  and  for  this  reason  its 
conclusion  has  scientific  value.  That  conclusion  is  very 
generally  held  and  is  perfectly  definite.  The  literal  iner- 
rancy or  infaUibility  of  the  Bible  is  a  doctrine  as  completely 
superseded  as  is  the  biblical  cosmogony.  Every  one  of  the 
sixty-six  books  of  the  Bible  is  a  witness  against  it,  and  not 
unwilHngly  but  wiUingly,  for  the  doctrine  of  infallibility 
has  injured  the  Bible  more  than  all  the  assaults  of  its  pro- 
fessed enemies. 

*  The  Seat  of  Authority  i7i  Religion,  1890,  Preface. 

2  The  declaration  of  Dean  Burgon,  quoted  by  Carpenter,  Interpreta- 
tion in  the  Nineteenth  Century,  p.  7,  sounds  like  an  echo  from  the  Middle 
Ages:  "Every  book  of  it  (the  Bible),  every  chapter  of  it,  every  verse  of  it, 
every  word  of  it,  every  syllable  of  it,  every  letter  of  it,  is  the  direct  utterance 
of  the  INIost  High." 

'  Science  and  Hebrew  Tradition, 


272  THE   INTERPRETATION   OF   THE   BIBLE 

Again,  the  impartial  scholar  of  the  present  rarely 
claims  that  the  Scriptures,  though  admitted  to  be 
,  falUble  in  unimportant  details,  are  nevertheless  infaUible 
in  all  matters  pertaining  to  faith  and  hfe.^  As  Dr.  Dods 
says  in  his  Lake  Forest  Lectures,  there  are  certain  ir- 
reconcilable discrepancies  even  between  the  accounts  of 
some  of  our  Lord's  sayings.^  There  are  points  in  his  teach- 
ing which  are  obscure  and  uncertain.^ 

Now  this  fact  alone  forbids  our  speaking  of  the  Bible  as 
absolutely  infallible  in  all  matters  of  faith  and  life.  It  is 
doubtless  quite  sufficient  unto  salvation, —  which  is  the  one 
practical  concern,  —  but  it  is  not  infallible,  nor  does  it  claim 
to  be.  Christian  history  abundantly  supports  the  state- 
ment of  Professor  Bowne  ^  that  we  need  no  infalUble  au- 
thority, whether  of  book  or  of  Church,  and  Criticism 
demonstrates,  as  regards  the  book,  that  we  certainly  Jiave 
no  infallible  authority.  Many  will  agree  with  Dr.  Abbott 
that  an  infalhble  book  is  an  impossible  conception.^ 

Thus  it  is  seen  that  our  general  conception  of  the  origin 
and  character  of  the  Bible  has  been  radically  transformed. 
And  we  are  immense  gainers  by  the  transformation. 
Historical  Criticism,  hke  all  true  science,  destroys  only 

'  See  Briggs,  The  Study  of  Holy  Scripture,  p.  75.  McFadyen,  O.  T. 
Criticism  and  the  Christian  Church,  pp.  268-312,  though  strongly  asserting 
inspiration,  shows  that  the  Bible  is  not  always  morally  and  religiously  true. 

'  The  Bible,  its  Nature  and  Origin,  1905,  p.  135. 

^  Consider,  for  example,  the  whole  subject  of  Eschatology.  What 
did  Jesus  really  teach?  In  particular,  what  did  he  say  about  a  second 
coming?  This  is  a  matter  that  pertains  to  "faith  and  life."  At  least, 
Paul  so  regarded  it. 

*  The  Immanence  of  God,  1905,  p.  112. 

^  The  Evolution  of  Christianity,  p.  36. 


SCIENTIFIC  ERA  OF  BIBLICAL  INTERPRETATION     273 

error.  The  Bible  has  been  humanized,  given  its  place 
among  the  religious  literatures  of  the  world,  and  thereby 
its  divine  character  is  being  for  the  first  time  truly  appre- 
ciated.^ The  attainment  of  this  new  conception  of  the 
Bible  as  a  whole,  since  it  conditions  the  understanding  of 
all  the  separate  parts  and  teachings  of  the  Bible,  is  perhaps 
the  most  important  event  in  the  entire  history  of  inter- 
pretation. 

Again,  it  is  to  be  noted  that  Criticism  has  made  of  the 
Pentateuch  a  practically  new  book.  The  traditional  view 
of  it,  going  back  to  Philo  and  even  to  earlier  generations, 
has  been  proven  to  be  wide  of  the  truth.  The  speculation 
of  Spinoza,  who  assigned  the  Pentateuch  and  the  seven 
following  books  to  Ezra  the  scribe,  was  at  least  a  remark- 
ably prescient  guess.  Historical  Criticism  agrees  with 
Spinoza  that  the  Pentateuch  v;as  not  composed  by  Moses, 
and  that  in  its  present  form  it  was  not  earlier  than  the  time 
of  Ezra.^  The  book  of  Deuteronomy,  or  at  least  the 
greater  part  of  it,  was  indeed  composed  some  two  hundred 
years  before  Ezra,  being  identical  with  that  "book  of  the 
law"  which  Hilkiah  found  in  the  temple  in  the  eighteenth 
year  of  Josiah.^  Other  documents  which  were  later  incor- 
porated in  our  Pentateuch  may  have  originated  as  early  as 

'  Criticism  does  not  lower  the  Bible  to  the  level  of  other  books,  even  of 
the  best,  as  it  does  not  reduce  Jesus  to  the  stature  of  other  men,  even 
of  the  best.  On  the  contrary,  it  indicates  the  only  way  by  which  what  is 
really  of  God  in  either  case  can  be  found. 

^  For  the  critical  view  and  for  references  to  the  extensive  modern  litera- 
ture, see  Driver,  Introduction  to  the  Literature  of  the  Old  Testament,  ninth 
edition,  1899. 

^  This  the  view  of  Graf,  published  in  1865.  See  Kuenen,  The  Hexa- 
ieuch,  English  translation,  1886, 


2  74  THE   INTERPRETATION   OF   THE   BIBLE 

the  ninth  century.^  The  interval,  therefore,  between  Tyloses, 
the  reputed  author  of  the  Pentateuch,  and  its  earUest 
written  portions,  was  about  equal  to  that  between  Colum- 
bus and  our  day,  w^hile  the  interval  between  Moses  and 
the  completed  Pentateuch  was  as  long  as  the  period  that 
stretches  from  us  to  the  Norman  Conquest. 

Some  scholars  find  nothing  whatever  in  the  Pentateuch 
which  can  be  assigned  to  Moses,  not  even  the  Decalogue;^ 
others  think  that  this  fundamental  code,  at  least  in  its 
earher  form  as  found  in  Ex.  34,  perhaps  also  some  further 
elements,  came  from  the  great  lawgiver.^  But  the  main 
position  that  the  production  of  our  Pentateuch  was  cen- 
turies after  the  time  of  Moses  is  established  on  the  most 
solid  basis.  Thus  the  true  chronological  order  is  not  Law 
and  Prophets,  but  Prophets  and  Law,  and  Historical 
Criticism  points  to  the  writings  of  Hosea  and  Amos  as 
the  earhest  parts  of  the  Old  Testament.  This  reversal  of 
ancient  judgments  is  of  great  significance  as  regards  the 
literature  and  history  of  the  Hebrews.  If  it  detracts  some- 
what from  the  traditional  versatility  of  Moses,  it  gives  light 
and  consistency  to  the  picture  of  the  religious  development 
of  Israel. 

The  book  of  Genesis,  which  from  \Qry  ancient  times  had 
been  the  especial  favorite  of  allegorical  interpreters  and 
which,  on  the  false  assumption  that  it  is  an  authoritative 
teacher  of  science,  was  quoted  for  centuries  against  scicn- 

'  The  composite  character  of  the  Pentateuch  has  parallels  in  the 
literature  of  Egypt  and  Babylonia.  Sayce,  The  Higher  Criticism  atid 
the  Monuments,  sixth  edition,  1901,  pp.  30-34. 

^  For  example,  Budde,  Religion  0/  Israel  to  the  Exile,  1899,  p.  32. 

'  For  example,  Professor  Barton,  Semitic  Origins,  1902,  p.  295. 


SCIENTIFIC  ERA  OF  BIBLICAL  INTERPRETATION     275 

tific  progress,  has  been  read  anew  by  Historical  Criticism, 
and  this  new  reading  is  another  conspicuous  achievement 
of  the  modern  era.  The  first  eleven  chapters  of  Genesis, 
in  particular,  have  been  reinterpreted.  It  has  been  shown, 
for  instance,  that  scientific  accuracy  is  not  an  attribute  of 
the  first  chapter ;  that  while  it  expresses  the  religious  belief 
that  the  visible  universe  was  created  by  God,  the  method 
and  order  of  this  creation  cannot  be  reconciled  with  the 
discoveries  of  science.  Thus,  for  example,  creation  was 
not  accomplished  in  six  days,  nor  was  there  light  and  a 
vegetable  kingdom  before  the  creation  of  the  light-giving 
bodies,  nor  were  primitive  men  and  the  primitive  animals 
vegetarians.  The  traditional  view  of  this  chapter  as  rep- 
resented by  Mr.  Gladstone  was  driven  from  the  field  by 
Mr.  Huxley.^ 

Chapters  2-1 1,  containing  the  narrative  of  the  creation  of 
Eve,  the  narrative  of  the  Fall,  of  the  tower  of  Babel,  of  the 
Flood,  and  others,  are  regarded  now  as  mainly  unhistori- 
cal.^  The  chronology  which  they  contain  is  manifestly 
untenable.  The  Hebrew  text  allows  only  4219  years  be- 
tween the  first  man  and  Christ,  which  period  the  Greek 
translation  of  the  Old  Testament  increased  to  5408  years ; 
but  the  discoveries  of  the  last  half  century  in  Egypt  and  in 
the  valley  of  the  Euphrates  prove  that  there  were  populous 
nations  at  as  early  a  period  as  that,  and  nations,  too,  whose 
intellectual  and  social  development  imply  an  existence  of 

>  See  Articles  in  the  Nineteenth  Century  for  December,  1885,  and  Feb- 
ruary, 1886. 

^  See  G.  A.  Smith,  Modern  Criticism  and  the  Preaching  of  the  O.  T., 
1901,  p.  90;  Burney,  Contentio  Veritatis,  pp.  169-170;  Dilhnann,  Die 
Genesis. 


276  THE   INTERPRETATION   OF  THE   BIBLE 

many  centuries.^  The  investigations  of  ethnologists  and 
the  doctrine  of  evolution  suggest  that  man's  presence  on  the 
earth  is  to  be  measured  by  tens  or  even  hundreds  of  thou- 
sands of  years.^  What  Professor  Driver  says  of  the  entire 
book  of  Genesis  is  apphcable,  as  regards  its  main  thought, 
to  chapters  2-1 1:  "As  a  result  of  the  archaeological  and 
ethnological  researches  of  the  past  half  century,  the  beliefs 
of  the  Israelites  about  the  origin  and  early  history  of  the 
world,  their  social  usages,  their  civil  and  criminal  law,  their 
religious  institutions,  can  no  longer  be  viewed,  as  was  once 
possible,  as  differing  in  kind  from  those  of  other  nations, 
and  determined  in  every  feature  by  a  direct  revelation 
from  heaven ;  all,  it  is  now  known,  have  substantial  analo- 
gies among  other  peoples,  the  distinguishing  characteristic 
which  they  exhibit  among  the  Hebrews  consisting  in  the 
spirit  with  which  they  are  infused,  and  the  higher  principles 
of  which  they  are  made  the  exponent."^ 

But  though  chapters  2-1 1  have  lost  in  historical  charac- 
ter, they  have  gained  immeasurably  in  spiritual  value.  It 
does  not  lessen  their  worth  to  discover  that  they  are  the 
refined  product  of  centuries,  perhaps  of  millenniums,  of 
brooding  over  the  questions  with  which  they  deal. 

'  Professor  Breasted,  Ancient  Records  of  Egypt,  1906,  1.  30,  holds  on 
astronomical  grounds  that  the  Egyptians  introduced  the  calendar  in 
4241  B.C.,  which  he  regards  as  the  oldest  fi.xed  date  in  history.  He  puts 
the  accession  of  Menes  at  3400  B.C.,  which  Miiller,  Encyclopedia  Biblica, 
assigns  to  about  4000  B.C.,  and  Petrie  carries  back  to  4777  B.C.  See  Au- 
thority and  Archceology,  p.  215.  Hommel  puts  the  beginning  of  Babylo- 
nian history  "considerably  earlier  than  4000  B.C."  See  Hastings' B /We 
Dictionary,  article  "  Bab}'Ionia." 

^  See  Fiske,  Miscellaneous  Writings,  7.  33-67. 

'See  Authority  and  Archaology,  edited  by  D.  G.  Hogarth,  1899,  p.  7. 


SCIENTIFIC  ERA  OF  BIBLICAL  INTERPRETATION     277 

To  the  remaining  chapters  of  Genesis  criticism  allows 
somewhat  greater  historical  value/  yet  cautions  us  against 
rating  it  too  high. 

We  pass  now  from  the  Law  to  the  Prophets,  but  only  to 
take  notice  of  two  points.  From  the  time  of  Eichhorn 
(t  1827)  and  Gesenius  (f  1842)  it  has  become  more  and 
more  manifest  that  the  book  called  Isaiah  comes  from  at 
least  two  writers  who  were  separated  from  each  other  by 
about  two  hundred  years.  Some  scholars  increase  the 
number  of  authors  and  also  the  period  in  which  the  several 
component  parts  were  written.  Professor  Cheyne  dates 
the  last  eleven  chapters  from  the  time  of  Nehemiah,  and 
puts  the  redaction  of  the  entire  work  not  less  than  five 
centuries  after  Isaiah,  the  son  of  Amoz.^  Thus,  instead  of 
one  great  prophet  as  sole  author,  who  lived  in  the  latter  part 
of  the  eighth  century  B.C.,  we  have  at  least  three,  one  of 
whom  lived  in  the  second  half  of  the  sixth  century ;  and 
instead  of  regarding  chapters  40-66  as  in  large  part  a  su- 
pernatural prevision  of  exilic  circumstances,  we  see  in  them, 
or  at  least  in  chapters  40-55,  a  message  that  originated 
in  the  very  time  with  which  it  is  concerned. 

The  interpretation  of  Old  Testament  prophecy  is  a 
subject  on  which  there  is  still  not  a  little  difference  of  views. 
One  thing,  however,  is  obvious,  viz.,  that  the  present  age  is 
making  far  less  apologetic  use  of  prophecy  than  was  made 
in  the  early  centuries.  The  proof  of  the  divinity  of  Christ 
out  of  the  prophets,  which  was  once  universal  and  unques- 

*  Professor  McCurdy,  Recent  Research  in  Bible  Lands,  1896,  edited  by 
H.  V.  Hilprecht,  regards  the  whole  of  Gen.  14  as  history.  Cf.  Driver, 
Authority  and  Archceology,  p.  44. 

^Introduction  to  the  Book  of  Isaiah,  1895. 


278  THE   INTERPRETATION   OF   THE    BIBLE 

tioned,  is  at  present  little  employed,  and  then  in  a  greatly 
modified  form.  The  influence  of  Historical  Criticism  has 
been  to  lessen,  if  not  entirely  to  destroy,  the  traditional 
predictive  use  of  isolated  texts  of  the  prophetic  writings. 
The  prophets  are  no  longer  thought  to  have  value  in  pro- 
portion to  the  extent  and  clearness  of  their  references  to  a 
coming  deliverer.  They  are  beginning  to  be  read  and  un- 
derstood in  the  light  of  their  own  times,  as  men  zealous  for 
the  God  of  Israel,  as  ardent  patriots,  as  practical  reformers, 
as  the  foremost  spiritual  leaders  of  their  respective  ages. 
Some  of  them  saw  beyond  the  struggles  and  the  sufferings 
of  the  present  a  divinely  sent  and  righteous  King,  but 
more  of  them  make  no  reference  to  any  other  intervention 
than  that  of  Jehovah,  the  God  of  Israel.^ 

Historical  Criticism  is  abandoning  the  orthodox  inter- 
pretation of  even  the  classical  texts  in  Isaiah.  Thus  the 
argument  for  the  divinity  of  Christ  from  the  names  in 
Is.  9 : 6,  once  supposed  to  be  invincible,  is  quietly  set 
aside  even  by  a  writer  on  Apologetics.  "Historical 
exegesis,"  says  Dr.  Bruce,  "may  not  justify  us  in  treating 
Isaiah's  list  of  wondrous  attributes  as  personal  charac- 
teristics and  so  arriving  at  the  conclusion  that  the  Saviour 
of  the  latter  days  is  to  be  not  merely  a  great  man,  but 
God  Almighty."^  In  like  manner,  George  Adam  Smith ^ 
discovers  no  reference  to  a  supernatural  birth  of  Jesus  in 

*  According  to  Stanton  we  do  not  find  references  to  the  Messiah  as  a 
unique  personality,  in  distinction  from  the  Davidic  Kings,  until  we  come 
to  the  post-canonical  writers,  with  the  possible  exception  of  Dan.  9  :  24-26. 
See  Hastings'  Bible  Dictionary,  article  "  Messiah." 

^Apologetics,  p.  259. 

^Modern  Criticism  and  the  Preaching  of  the  O.  T.,  1901,  p.  160.     See 


SCIENTIFIC  ERA  OF  BIBLICAL  INTERPRETATION      279 

Is.  7:  14  —  a  text  which  from  the  days  of  Justin  Martyr 
even  to  the  present  has  been  forced  into  the  service  of  a 
theological  doctrine  undreamed  of  by  its  author. 

Thus  Historical  Criticism  is  approaching  (apparently 
without  recognizing  it)  that  view  of  Messianic  prophecy 
which,  as  we  have  shown  in  a  former  chapter,  was  held  by 
Jesus. 

When  we  turn  from  the  Old  Testament  to  the  New,  we 
find  that  here  also  Historical  Criticism,  in  many  instances, 
is  overturning  the  conclusions  of  centuries.  The  problems 
it  encounters  in  this  field  are  no  less  difficult  than  those  of 
the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  while  the  attitude  of  the  Church 
toward  the  application  of  criticism  to  the  New  Testa- 
ment, especially  to  the  Gospels,  has  been  decidedly  more 
reserved  and  suspicious  than  it  was  in  the  case  of  the  Old 
Testament.^ 

The  initial  event  of  this  modern  era  of  New  Testament 
study  —  the  publication  of  Strauss'  Lehen  Jesii  in  1835  — 
was  of  a  character  to  beget  a  deep  and  lasting  antipathy 
toward  the  critical  handling  of  the  Gospels,  for  it  reduced 
the  story  of  Jesus  to  unconscious  poetry  and  myth,  and 
declared  that  the  historical  Jesus  is  quite  unknown  to  us. 
The  second  great  event  of  the  era  —  the  publication  of 
Baur's  reconstruction  of  the  Apostolic  Age,^  though  far 
less  negative  in  character  than  the  work  of  Strauss,  and 

also  Marti,  Das  Buck  Jesaja,  p.  76.  Marti  says  that  Alma  does  not 
refer  to  a  definite  woman,  nor  Immanuel  to  the  Messiah. 

'  On  the  incorrectness  of  this  attitude,  see  Moffatt,  The  Historical 
New  Testament,  1901,  pp.  71-75. 

^  Die  Christliche  Gnosis,  1835;  Paulus,  1845. 


28o  THE    INTERPRETATION   OF   THE   BIBLE 

not  incorrectly  described  as  "a  fundamental  achievement 
for  all  future  investigation  of  Christianity,"  yet  so  human- 
ized, not  to  say  vulgarized,  the  constructive  motives  and 
forces  at  work  in  the  production  of  Acts  and  the  apostolic 
epistles  that  it  gave  the  Church  a  shock  from  which  it  has 
been  long  in  recovering.  But  Strauss  and  Baur  rendered 
at  least  one  immeasurable  service,  viz.,  that  they  forced  the 
Church  to  a  critical  study  of  the  New  Testament,  which 
has  continued  with  increasing  fruitfulness  to  the  present 
hour.  Its  results  come  home  to  Christian  faith  in  a  more 
vital  manner  than  results  in  the  field  of  Old  Testament 
investigation;  and  it  is  therefore  both  natural  and  right 
that  they  should  be  held  off  at  a  distance  until  their  claim 
to  acceptance  has  been  made  abundantly  good.  When 
that  shall  be  done,  they  must  of  course  be  received,  and  the 
former  views  will  pass  away. 

In  the  interpretation  of  the  New  Testament  during  the 
modern  era,  the  results  of  Historical  Criticism  have  borne 
a  striking  analogy  to  those  reached  in  the  study  of  the  Old 
Testament.  Thus  the  Gospels,  like  the  Pentateuch,  have 
been  shown  to  be  composite ;  their  dates  and  the  dates 
of  not  a  few  other  writings  of  the  New  Testament  have 
been  brought  down  considerably  farther  from  the  time  of 
Jesus  than  the  traditional  dates,  just  as  many  writings  of 
the  Old  Testament  have  been  demonstrated  to  be  younger 
than  was  formerly  supposed;^  and  as  the  prophetic  ele- 

*  Bacon,  Introduction  to  the  N.  T.,  1900,  assigns  Mark  to  the  early 
years  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem;  Matthew  to  the  period  80-90; 
Luke  and  Acts  to  the  later  part  of  Domitian's  reign  (81-96) ;  Hebrews 
to  the  closing  years  of  the  century.     Schniiedel  puts  Luke  in  the  period 


SCIENTIFIC  ERA  OF  BIBLICAL  INTERPRETATION     281 

ment  in  the  Old  Testament  has  come  into  new  historical 
significance,  the  Law  in  the  meantime  taking  a  subordinate 
place,  so  the  teaching  of  Jesus,  his  prophetic  activity,  has 
assumed  greater  prominence  in  comparison  with  the  sacri- 
ficial and  institutional  elements  in  the  Gospels.  Again, 
as  the  Old  Testament  has  been  broken  up  into  parts  whose 
spiritual  value  is  seen  to  be  very  unlike,  —  the  earlier, 
prophetic  part  showing  the  high- water  mark,  and  the  later, 
priestly  portion  registering  a  decline, — so  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment field  the  conceptions  of  the  apostles  are  beginning  to 
be  seen  to  be  on  a  lower  level  than  those  of  Jesus/  And 
finally,  to  the  legendary  element  in  the  Old  Testament, 
which  flowers  out  in  the  book  of  Genesis,  it  is  now  recog- 
nized that  the  New  Testament  is  not  entirely  lacking  in 
parallels.^ 

Of  the  greater  features  of  New  Testament  interpretation 
in  the  modern  era,  the  first  to  be  noticed  is  the  partial ' 
solution  of  the  Hterary  interrelation  of  the  first  three 
Gospels.  A  long  series  of  scholars  beginning  with  Wilke 
and  Weisse  in  Germany,  whose  views  on  this  subject  were 
published  in  1838,  have  come  to  the  same  conclusions  on 

loo-iio,  and  Matthew  before  130,  perhaps  about  119.  See  Encyclo- 
pedia Biblica,  article  "  Gospels." 

1  This  fact  has  scarcely  begun  to  be  appreciated.  The  remark  of 
T.  H.  Green  that  Jesus  and  Paul  are  the  "two  parents  of  our  faith," 
and  the  thought  of  another  English  writer  that  Paul  was  raised  up  to  ex- 
press what  Jesus  was  obliged  to  leave  unexpressed,  illustrate  a  very  gen- 
eral view  on  the  subject. 

^  See,  e.^..  Dr.  Bruce,  article  "  Jesus  "  in  Encyclopcedia  Biblica;  and 
especially  Gunkel,  Schopfung  und  Chaos,  1895. 

^  For  the  latest  survey  of  the  question  as  relates  especially  to  Mark,  see 
Holtzmann,  Archiv  fiir  Religions-wissenschaft,  1907,  Nos.  1-2. 


282  THE   INTERPRETATION   OF  THE   BIBLE 

some  general  points;  first,  that  Mark  was  the  earliest  of 
our  Gospels;  and  second,  that  Mark  and  a  document 
which  contained  chiefly  words  of  Jesus  were  the  two  main 
sources  both  of  Matthew  and  Luke.  The  material  of  each 
of  the  Synoptics  goes  back  ultimately  to  oral  tradition,^ 
for  no  one  of  them  was  composed  by  an  eye-witness. 
Each  is  the  result  of  processes  of  transmission  which  have 
not  been  traced  and  probably  never  can  be.  The  un- 
profitable attempt  to  harmonize  their  differences  has  now 
given  place  to  an  endeavor  to  understand  each  in  the 
light  of  its  own  manifest  aim.  It  is  coming  to  be  recog- 
nized that  even  the  first  three  Gospels,  and  particularly 
Matthew,  have  a  considerable  interpretative  element; 
that  their  motive  was  primarily  religious ;  and  that  they 
reflect  to  some  extent  the  views  current  in  the  Church  at  the 
time  of  their  origin.  The  interpreter  must  therefore  seek 
through  a  comparison  of  the  sources  and  a  critical  study  of 
each  by  itself  to  get  back  of  these  earHest  interpretative 
accounts  and  to  see  the  initial  facts  for  himself.  And  this 
is  possible  now  as  it  never  was  before. 

Again,  Historical  Criticism  is  slowly  moulding  a  new 
conception  of  the  Gospel  of  John.  This  writing,  it  is  true, 
is  still  the  Sphinx  of  New  Testament  criticism,  and  schol- 
ars differ  widely  regarding  its  origin  and  historical  value. 
Some  still  think  that  it  was  written  by  the  apostle  John,^ 

'  Schmiedel,  in  the  article  just  quoted,  thinks  it  probable  that  the  writ- 
ten sources  of  Mark  and  the  Logia  may  themselves  have  rested  on  other 
written  sources,  and  possible  that  the  earliest  written  source  of  both  may 
have  been  Aramaic. 

^  See,  e.g.,  Dods,  The  Bible,  its  Nature  and  Origin,  p.  186;  Drum- 
mond,  A  n  Inquiry  into  the  Character  and  A  uthorship  0/  the  Fourth  Gospel, 
1903;  and  Ladd,  The  Doctrine  0/ Sacred  Scripture,  2.  244. 


SCIENTIFIC  ERA  OF  BIBLICAL  INTERPRETATION     283 

though  of  these  most  allow  that  it  is  largely  an  interpreta- 
tion of  the  hfe  and  teaching  of  Jesus  rather  than  a  history. 
Other  scholars  find  a  historical  element  in  the  book,  genu- 
ine memoirs  of  the  apostle,  but  deny  that  the  writing  can 
possibly  have  come  from  his  hand/  And  finally,  there  are 
competent  investigators  ^  who  do  not  discover  in  this  Gos- 
pel any  independent  value  as  an  authority  for  the  history 
of  Jesus.  Yet  in  spite  of  all  this  divergence  of  view  among 
scholars,  it  is  plain  that  Historical  Criticism  is  changing  the 
traditional  conception  of  this  book.  The  time  seems  to  be 
past  when  it  can  be  ranked  with  the  Synoptics  in  respect  to 
its  historical  value.  Even  if  apostolic  authorship  has  not 
already  been  made  too  improbable  to  be  longer  entertained, 
yet  the  boldly  interpretative  and  speculative  character  of 
the  book  is  too  clear  to  allow  its  use  as  a  source  of  the  life 
and  teaching  of  Jesus  which  has  equal  value  with  the 
earlier  and  more  objective  sources.  Therefore  instead  of 
continuing,  as  it  has  been  through  all  the  centuries,  the 
chief  Gospel  authority  with  theologians,  it  is  coming  to  be 
set  after  the  Synoptics. 

Through  this  critical  study  of  the  Gospels,  at  the  course 
of  which  we  have  glanced,  a  new  conception  of  the  charac- 
ter and  work  of  Jesus  is  in  process  of  formation.  There  is 
much  reason  to  believe  that  this  new  conception,  when 

*  E.g.,  Wendt,  The  Gospel  according  to  St.  John,  English  translation, 
1902  ;  and  E.  A.  Abbott,  article  "  Gospels  "  in  Eftcyclopcedia  Biblica. 

^  E.g.,  Julicher,  Introduction  to  the  N.  T.,  p.  422. 

Professor  Bacon  thinks  the  direct  internal  evidence  of  the  Appendix 
of  the  Gospel  lacks  both  antiquity  and  authority,  and  that  the  general 
external  evidence  is  as  capable  of  an  interpretation  against  as  for  the 
Johannean  authorship.     See  Hibbert  Journal,  i.  3;   2.  2. 


284  THE   INTERPRETATION   OF  THE   BIBLE 

complete,  will  differ  from  that  of  the  orthodox  theology  as 
widely  as  the  new  view  of  the  Bible  differs  from  the  old. 
Certain  phases  of  this  new  conception  have  been  so  vividly 
realized  that  some  writers  speak  as  though  the  process  of 
criticism  in  this  direction  were  already  finished,  or  at  least 
were  nearing  completion.  Thus  Dr.  Fairbairn  not  only 
says  that  we  stand  face  to  face  with  Christ  "  in  a  sense  and 
to  a  degree  unknown  in  the  Church  since  the  Apostolic 
Age"  — a  statement  to  which  no  serious  exception  can  be 
taken,  but  he  goes  farther  and  treats  the  recovery  of  the 
historical  Christ  as  an  accomplished  fact.^  This  is  surely 
unwarranted.  And  one  is  hardly  able  to  take  at  their  full 
value,  much  as  one  would  desire  so  to  do,  the  words  of 
Dr.  Hall  that  "Historical  Criticism  has  brought  to  pass 
what  may  almost  be  described  as  a  second  advent  of  the 
Incarnate  Lord."  ^ 

The  historical  Jesus  is  indeed  being  recovered,  and  if  we 
have  regard  only  to  the  reading  of  his  character  and  the 
appreciation  of  his  teaching,  one  is  justified  in  the  use  of 
very  strong  terms  to  describe  what  has  been  accomplished  ; 
but  the  subject  is  broader,  and  while  such  questions  as  the 
birth  of  Jesus  and  his  resurrection  are  unsettled,^  we  can- 
not say  that  the  process  of  historical  recover}'  has  reached  its 
end.  And  these  two  questions,  not  to  mention  others,  as 
the  miracles  of  Jesus  and  his  Messianic  consciousness,  are 

'  The  Place  of  Christ  in  Modern  Theology,  pp.  294-295. 

'  The  Universal  Elements  of  the  Christian  Religion,  1905,  pp.  207-255. 

^  Arnold,  God  and  the  Bible,  1893,  says,  indeed,  that  "the  important 
thing  is  not  whether  Jesus  rose,  but  whether  his  disciples  believed  that  he 
rose."  We  do  not  think  so.  The  important  thing  is  to  ascertain  in 
what  sense  they  believed  that  he  rose. 


SCIENTIFIC  ERA  OF  BIBLICAL  INTERPRETATION     285 

obviously  not  yet  settled.  We  can  speak  of  a  decided  trend 
of  criticism  upon  them,  but  not  of  final  conclusions.  What 
this  trend  is  with  regard  to  the  birth  and  the  resurrection  of 
Jesus  is  suggested  by  the  fact  that  few  scholars  of  the  pres- 
ent day,  if  any,  would  venture  to  say  what  was  said  only  a 
few  years  ago,  that  these  two  alleged  facts  are  the  two 
fundamental  miracles  of  Christianity.^  The  evidence  for 
both  alleged  facts,  in  the  sense  in  which  they  have  been 
understood  in  the  Church  from  time  immemorial,  is  seen 
to  be,  when  critically  considered,  quite  insufficient.  This 
insufficiency,  however,  is  not  the  same  in  both  cases.  The 
evidence  for  a  supernatural  birth  of  Jesus  is  less  strong  than 
that  which  the  New  Testament  affords  for  a  bodily  and 
material  resurrection.  Thus,  for  example,  the  words  of 
Jesus  and  the  circumstances  of  his  life  not  only  offer  no 
confirmation  of  the  story  of  his  supernatural  birth,  but,  on 
the  contrary,  are  full  of  what  seems  to  be  a  very  definite 
implication  that  his  humanity  was  perfectly  normal,  while 
as  regards  his  resurrection  the  Gospels  directly  ascribe 
to  him  language  which  positively  announces  his  resurrec- 
tion, and  then  they  give,  though  with  much  obscurity,  a 
considerable  number  of  circumstances  confirmatory  of  the 
words  of  Jesus  taken  in  a  literal  sense.  It  is  impossible, 
therefore,  from  the  standpoint  of  Historical  Criticism  to 
regard  the  supernatural  birth  of  Jesus  and  his  material 
resurrection  as  resting  on  equally  conclusive  grounds. 

•  Fairbairn,  Studies  in  the  Life  of  Christ,  eleventh  edition,  1899,  says, 
p.  331,  that  "the  essential  miracles  may  be  said  to  be  three  — the  Birth, 
the  Person,  and  the  Resurrection.  These  all  stand  indissolubly  together; 
partition  is  impossible." 


286  THE    INTERPRETATION   OF  THE   BIBLE 

Again,  this  sketch  of  modern  interpretation  as  regards 
the  record  of  Jesus'  hfe  may  not  omit  this  further  fact,  viz., 
that  in  this  modern  era,  in  spite  of  serious  doubt  regarding 
the  alleged  supernatural  birth  and  material  resurrection, 
there  has  been  such  an  acquaintance  with  him,  such  an 
appreciation  of  his  teaching,  that  Professor  Peabody  can 
declare  that  the  exaltation  of  the  character  of  Jesus  is 
"the  most  conspicuous  aspect  of  contemporary  Christian 
thought."  ^  What  docs  this  indicate  if  not  that  Christian- 
ity is  capable  of  vigorous  development,  even  though  the 
supernatural  birth  and  material  resurrection  of  Jesus  be 
relegated  to  the  domain  of  "poetical  mythology"?  To 
say  that  they  will  yet  be  finally  relegated  to  that  sphere 
would  be  to  make  an  unwarranted  statement,  but  it  is 
surely  a  most  significant  fact  that  Historical  Criticism, 
which  casts  doubt  on  both  these  articles,  is  yet  affirmed  — 
and  we  believe  truthfully  afliirmed  —  to  have  made  Jesus 
better  known  than  he  had  been  since  the  days  of  the 
apostles. 

There  are  other  questions  in  connection  with  Jesus  on 
which  Historical  Criticism  is  uttering  views  c|uitc  foreign 
to  those  held  in  earlier  times  and  still  held  by  the  Church 
at  large.  Thus  the  nature  and  place  of  the  miraculous  in 
the  ministry  of  Jesus  is  still  a  subject  of  earnest  debate. 
Dr.  Arnold  was  sure  that  miracles  would  be  given  up  al- 
together as  man's  experience  widens  and  as  he  sees  how 

^  Hihhert  Journal,  i.  4.  —  Ritschlianism  has  contributed  to  this  end, 
whatever  may  be  said  in  criticism  of  the  exegesis  of  Ritschl  himself, 
and  in  so  far  at  least  this  theological  school  has  been  in  accord  with 
Historical  Criticism. 


SCIENTIFIC  ERA  OF  BIBLICAL  INTERPRETATION     287 

they  arose/  while  Dr.  Bruce  regarded  them  as  "of  the  very 
essence  of  revelation."  "  There  is,  however,  an  increasing 
agreement  among  scholars  on  two  points,  viz.,  first,  that 
some  of  the  alleged  miracles  in  the  Gospels,  for  example, 
the  resurrection  of  many  saints  at  the  time  of  the  resurrec- 
tion of  Jesus  (Matt.  27:  52),  lack  adequate  support;  and 
second,  that  many  events  which  appeared  to  be  miracu- 
lous in  New  Testament  times  would  not  be  so  regarded  at 
present,  being  explicable  on  known  laws  of  Nature.^  It  is 
also  manifest  —  and  this  too  is  important  for  our  final 
judgment  of  the  matter  —  that  the  evangelists  laid  far 
greater  stress  on  the  value  of  the  miraculous  than  is  justi- 
fied by  the  words  of  Jesus  himself,  or  by  the  facts  of  his 
ministry.^ 

Once  more,  Historical  Criticism  is  altering  the  concep- 
tion of  the  divinity  of  Jesus.  The  earliest  portrait  of  him 
recovered  by  analysis  of  the  Gospels  and  in  particular  by 
the  study  of  his  inner  life  is  incompatible  with  the  philo- 
sophical conception  which  has  prevailed  in  the  Church  since 
the  second  century.  Historical  Criticism  teaches  that  we 
know  much  of  the  character  of  Jesus,  more  indeed  than 
we  know  of  the  character  of  any  other  person  of  history, 


*  Literature  and  Dogma,  p.  116. 

^  The  Chief  End  of  Revelation,  p.  168. 

^  But  if  the  "  laws  "  of  Nature  are  simply  God's  mode  of  action,  then 
plainly  a  miracle  is  no  more  divine  than  any  event  that  takes  place  ac- 
cording to  known  laws. 

^  Consider,  for  example,  how  frequently  Matthew  seeks  to  establish  a 
connection  between  the  works  of  Jesus  and  Old  Testament  prophecy, 
which  Jesus  never  did  in  a  formal  manner,  and  perhaps  but  a  single  time 
even  in  a  general  way  (Matt.  11  :  2-6). 


288  THE   INTERPRETATION   OF  THE   BIBLE 

but  that  we  know  as  little  of  his  nature  or  essence  as  we  do 
of  our  own.  Criticism  has  withdrawn  all  standing  ground 
from  beneath  the  raetaphysical  view.  The  divinity  of 
Jesus  remains,  but  it  is  the  divinity  of  character.  Hence, 
it  is  wholly  lilce  the  divinity  of  the  heavenly  Father,  as  far 
as  that  may  be  judged  from  the  revelation  of  Jesus,  for  his 
revelation  is  rigidly  limited  to  God's  character.  He  made 
no  disclosures  whatever  in  regard  to  the  being  of  God. 

Since  the  divinity  of  Jesus  is  such  as  man  is  capable  of, 
it  is  consistent  with  intellectual,  no  less  than  with  physical, 
limitations.^ 

Thus  if  the  conclusions  in  regard  to  the  Gospels  which 
Historical  Criticism  has  either  reached  or  toward  which  it 
points  be  found  valid,  we  are  approaching  a  thorough 
reconstruction  of  the  traditional  doctrine  of  Christ,  and  so 
also  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity. 

We  have  now  considered  the  great  influences  at  work  in 
the  modern  era  of  interpretation,  and  have  endeavored  to 
set  forth  the  nature  and  importance  of  Historical  Criticism 
by  passing  in  review  some  of  the  more  notable  of  its  results, 
particularly  those  in  the  field  of  Bible  history  and  exegesis. 
But  the  critical  method  has  equally  characterized  other 
departments  of  the  general  subject  of  the  interpretation 
of  Scripture,  as  a  hasty  glance  will  show. 

Thus  the  text  of  the  New  Testament,  enriched  by  the 
discoveries  of  Tischendorf  on  Mt.  Sinai,^  has  been  brought 

'  That  Jesus  was  conscious  of  such  limitations  is  made  quite  plain  by 
the  Gospels.     See  the  author's  The  Revelation  of  Jesus,  pp.  169-174. 

^  Fragments  of  the  Codex  Sinaiticuswcrc  discovered  in  1844,  the  main 
part  in  1859. 


SCIENTIFIC  ERA  OF  BIBLICAL  INTERPRETATION      289 

to  a  high  state  of  perfection  by  Hort  (f  1892)  and  other 
great  continuators  of  the  work  of  Griessbach  and  Bengel. 
The  philological  study  of  the  Old  Testament,  especially 
the  meaning  of  its  separate  words,  has  flourished  under  the 
stimulus  afforded  by  the  discovery  of  the  nearly  related 
language  of  Baby  Ionia- Assyria,  and  its  results  arc  already 
being  registered  in  lexicons  ^  far  richer  and  more  exact 
than  could  possibly  have  been  produced  a  hundred  years 
ago. 

Historical  Criticism,  utilizing  the  results  of  the  excava- 
tions, has  rewritten  Biblical  Archaeology "  from  a  broader 
point  of  view,  while  the  Geography  of  the  Holy  Land  has 
for  the  first  time  received  scientific  treatment  within  the  last 
generation.'  The  discipline  of  Biblical  Theology,  which 
traces  the  development  of  belief  from  the  earlier  and  lower 
to  the  later  and  higher  forms,  and  which  is  the  culmination 
of  the  entire  process  of  interpretation,  is  the  product  of 
the  last  half  century,  an  inspiration  of  the  scientific  age/ 

From  this  branch,  as  it  shall  be  perfected  more  and  more 
with  the  perfecting  of  the  entire  preceding  work  of  inter- 
pretation, there  may  come,  one  feels  there  ought  to  come,  a 
new  springtime  of  Theology  proper,  in  which  the  old  Greek 

*  That  of  Francis  Brown,  aided  by  Driver  and  Briggs,  was  published 
1891-1906,  and  a  new  edition  of  Gesenius,  edited  by  Buhl,  1905. 

^  The  works  of  I.  Benzinger  and  W.  Nowack  under  the  title  He- 
braische  Archdologie  were  published  in  1894. 

^  For  details  of  this  recent  work,  see  G.  A.  Smith,  Historical  Geography 
of  the  Holy  Land,  third  edition,  1895,  Preface. 

^  The  literature  of  this  discipline  is  already  extensive,  showing  works 
that  cover  the  entire  O.  T.  or  the  entire  N.  T.,  and  yet  more  that  deal  with 
some  single  writer  or  some  brief  period. 
u 


290  THE   INTERPRETATION   OF  THE   BIBLE 

system,  which  has  long  outhvcd  its  usefulness,  will  vanish 
away,  and  the  Spirit  of  God  interpreting  the  history  of 
Israel  and  the  work  of  Jesus  in  the  light  of  the  present  will 
make  the  deep  elements  of  their  permanent  revelation  the 
substance  of  a  new  and  vital  teaching  for  a  new  and  ex- 
panding Church. 

We  observe  in  concluding  this  chapter  that  toward  this 
springtime  —  already  announced  here  and  there  *  —  many 
are  looking  to-day,  and  are  waiting  for  it  as  watchmen  wait 
for  the  morning.  But  we  must  not  be  deceived  as  to  the 
nearness  and  ease  of  its  coming  by  the  unexampled  prog- 
ress of  interpretation  in  the  last  three  quarters  of  a  century. 
What  Historical  Criticism  aided  by  Natural  Science  and 
Comparative  Religion  has  achieved  contrasts  strongly  with 
the  achievements  of  the  earlier  ages,  yet  this  achievement 
is  imperfect,  and  when  we  have  regard  to  the  great  mass 
of  the  Christian  Church,  —  Protestant,  Roman  Cathohc, 
and  Greek  Catholic,  —  we  must  admit  that  it  is  a  door 
through  which  but  few  have  yet  entered  into  the  larger  life 
of  the  revelation  of  God. 

The  achievement  itself  is  still  imperfect.  The  method 
indeed  is  scientific,  but  none  who  employ  it  are  wholly 
free  from  prejudice  and  bias,  neither  are  they  trained  to 
the  needed  largeness  and  clearness  of  view.  The  last  gen- 
eration has  produced  two  classes  of  commentaries  on  the 
Bible,  the  technical  and  the  popular,  in  each  of  which 
numerous  volumes  have  been  written  that  eclipse  the  best 
work  of  the  fourth,  the  sixteenth,  or  the  eighteenth  ccn- 

*  See,  e.g.,  W.  N.  Clarke,  Outline  of  Christian  Theology,  and  W.  A. 
Brown,  Christian  Theology  in  Outline,  1907. 


SCIENTIFIC  ERA  OF  BIBLICAL  INTERPRETATION      291 

tury;^  but  is  there  one  of  these  books  that  satisfies  its 
author,  one  that  can  be  regarded  as  wholly  adequate  to 
the  present  state  of  knowledge,  least  of  all  one  that  by 
any  stretch  of  imagination  could  possibly  be  looked  on  as 
final?  There  is  only  one  answer  to  these  questions  from 
any  person  who  understands  the  nature  of  Historical  Criti- 
cism and  who  appreciates  at  all  the  influence  of  ancient 
dogmas  intrenched  behind  the  visible  institutions  of 
Christianity  and  hallowed  by  the  usage  of  countless  noble 
and  true  lives.  Historical  Criticism  is  an  ideal  which, 
though  grasped  and  its  real  nature  apprehended,  is  nowhere 
consistently  applied.  It  is  indeed,  as  has  been  said,  the 
special  gift  of  God  to  this  age,  but  it  is  not  for  this  alone : 
it  is  for  all  the  future,  to  be  cultivated  so  long  as  there  shall 
be  spiritual  development  upon  the  earth,  and  to  be  per- 
fected from  generation  to  generation. 

And  then,  even  this  partial  and  imperfect  dawn  of  a  new 
era  of  interpretation  is  as  yet  seen  and  felt  by  only  a  few 
in  the  wide  Church  of  God.  Few  even  in  the  Protestant 
Church  know  what  God  has  wrought  and  is  now  working 
for  the  understanding  of  his  ancient  Scriptures.  There 
are  great  denominations  in  which  the  method  and  results 
of  Historical  Criticism  are  not  openly  tolerated ;  numerous 
influential  schools  of  theology  and  other  educational 
institutions  in  which  the  traditional  view  of  the  Bible  is 


'  Such  volumes  may  be  found,  e.g.,  in  the  Meyer  series  on  the  N.  T., 
in  Holtzmann's  Handcommentar  zum  A.  T.,  Marti's  Kurzer  Hand- 
commentar  zum  A.  T .,  in  The  Expositor's  Bible,  and  in  The  International 
Critical  Commentary,  not  to  mention  works  of  equal  value  on  single  books 
of  Scripture. 


292  THE   INTERPRETATION   OF  THE  BIBLE 

zealously,  and  on  occasion  almost  fanatically,  defended  as 
though  it  were  the  very  Ark  of  God ;  books  of  alleged  inter- 
pretation of  Scripture,  ecclesiastically  sanctioned,  whose 
method  is  more  mediaeval  than  modern;  and,  finally, 
a  great  host  of  preachers  who  either  do  not  know  what 
Historical  Criticism  has  done  for  the  Bible  or  who  are  very 
successful  in  concealing  the  truth  from  those  whom  they  are 
set  to  guide.  And  all  this  is  within  that  branch  of  the 
Church  in  which  biblical  science  has  been  most  largely 
fostered.  The  more  numerous  ritualistic  branches  of  the 
Church  stand  practically  untouched  by  this  momentous 
work  of  the  Spirit  of  God. 

It  is  not,  therefore,  for  those  who  cherish  the  gift  of  a 
disenthralled  Bible  and  who  appreciate  the  method  of  its 
disenthrallment  to  think  of  the  achievement  of  the  modern 
age  in  the  interpretation  of  Scripture  as  other  than  a  new 
germ  planted  in  the  Church,  which  they,  as  children  of  the 
fuller  light,  are  to  water  and  nourish ;  to  water  and  nourish, 
moreover,  in  the  sure  and  steadfast  conviction  that  this 
fuller  light  will  sometime  dawn  throughout  the  entire 
Church. 

As  the  revelation  of  God  to  Israel  grew  from  less  to  more 
until  it  culminated  in  the  perfect  Sonship  of  Jesus,  so  the 
interpretation  of  that  revelation,  both  the  intellectual  and 
the  vital,  is  subject  to  the  law  of  gradual  development.  In 
the  history  of  this  development  the  modern  scientific  era 
of  Scripture  study  will  always  stand  as  a  notable  way- 
mark.  The  light  which  rests  upon  it  is  the  Hght  of  God, 
and  we  beHeve  it  to  be  the  harbinger  of  a  far  more  glorious 
day. 


INDEX   OF   SCRIPTURES    REFERRED   TO 
OR   QUOTED 


GENESIS 

CHAPTER  PAGE 

I  :  I  240 

I  23,    24,    172,    175,    236 

I  :  26  08,  121 


2-1 1 

275, 

276 

2  :  I 

44 

2  :8 

45, 

126 

2:11- 

-14 

50 

2  :  21- 

22 

44 

2  :  24 

65 

3  -9 

47 

3:16 

161 

3  :  22 

98 

4  :  2 

48 

4  :? 

28 

4:17 

45 

5  :29 

230-231 

6:13- 

16 

179 

6:15 

126-127 

7  -9 

54 

II  :  2 

27 

II  :32 

51 

14 

237 

14  :  14 

93 

17:15 

49 

17  :  26- 

-27 

93 

22  : 9 

89 

32  :  22- 

■32 

216 

40:25 

25 

42  :  2 

19 

47  :29 

22 

49 

99. 

173 

49  :  II 

lOI 

CHAPTER 

49  :  10,  16-17 
49  :  24 


EXODUS 


12  :8 
15  :26 
17  :  II 
17  :  12 
19  :  2 

21  :  19 

22  :3 
22  :  26 
24:7 
24  :9 
26  :  I 

30 

30  :6 
32  :  16 
34 


LEVITICUS 


13  :  45-46 
14 

14  :  10 
16  :  10 

19  :  18 

20  :  14 
24  :9 


NUMBERS 


6 

19 


24-26 


PAGE 
17 
17 

101 
22 
25 

94 
21 

25 
25 

52 

14 
26 

no 

160 

no 

20 

274 

92 
62 
62 
102 
94 
63,65 

19 
61 


236 
94 
94 


293 


294 


INDEX   OF   SCRIPTURES 


DEUTERONOMY 


CHAPTER 

5  :4-S 
6:4-5 
21  :  21 

21  :  23 

22  :  17 

25  :4 

30  :  12-13 

33  :2 

34  :6 


1  :8 

2  :4 


13  : 2-25 


JOSHUA 


JUDGES 


21  :  1-6 


7  :  16 
22  :  26 


2  :  II 
22  :  4 


2  :55 


I  SAMUEL 


2  SAMUEL 


2  KINGS 


I   CHRONICLES 


7  :i-5 
7  :7 
7  :  10 
8:16 


7  :25 
8:7 


EZRA 


NEHEMIAH 


63 
162 
122 

25 
81 
76 
24 
30 


30 

105 

89 


216 


214 
64 


CHAPTER 

PAGE 

8  :  3,  18 

3 

10  :  28 

3 

10  :  29 

4 

13:1 

ESTHER 

5 

I-IO 

159-160 

2  :  22 

JOB 

15 

40  :  10 

26 

40  :  15-24 

173 

41 

PSALMS 

159 

I 

92,  198 

I  :  2 

22 

2 

228 

3 

198 

3:5 

90,  199 

4 

130,  198 

4:5 

23 

6 

198 

8 

127- 

-128,  198 

9 

IS4 

II  -.4 

174 

12  :8 

23 

15 

198 

19 

130 

19  :  6 

174 

19  :8 

23 

22 

130,  199 

22  :  6 

89 

22  :  20 

179 

23 

128,  220 

24 

99,  198 

24:4 

64 

25 

130,  198 

29 
30 

29 
198 

34  :  II 
37  :" 


64 


INDEX   OF   SCRIPTURES 


295 


45  :6 
46 

65 
67 

68 

68:16 

72 

73 

77  :2i 

78  :  20 
85:12 
90  :4 
97 

97  :2 
100  :3 
102  :  25 
no 
113  :6-7 

118  :  22 

119  :  164 


PAGE 
214 
199 

154 
200 
200 
201 

15 
128 

19 
20 

31 

93 
127 

32 

200 

86 

83,  138 

31 
69 

153 


PROVERBS 


6:2 

8:  20 

8:  22-31 
11:  30 
31 


27 

115 
i,  122,  123,  124 

32 
184 


SONG   OF  SOLOMON 
6:8  158 


6:9 


1:13 
3:  10 
6:3 

7:3 

7:  14 

8:1 

8:18 


ISAIAH 


178 


17 
94 
31 

123 
80 

279 
80 
80 


CHAPTER 
9:6 

PAGE 
215,    278 

II :  I 
25:9 

177 
216 

35 
40-66 

67 

277 

45:23 

53 

61 :  1-2 

65:17 

77 
69,  70,  86 

64 
170 

JEREMIAH 

22:  14 

28 

23:6 

215 

31:22 

161 

LAMENTATIONS 


4:  20 


EZEKIEL 


I 

23,  24 

1:16 

176-177 

4:4-8 

49 

28:13 

143 

37 

26 

43 :  1-2 

161 

44:  I 

161 

48:35 

DANIEL 

216 

2:34 

loS 

7:9-10 

174 

9:  24 

49 

9 : 24-26 

HOSEA 

278 

6:1 

61 

6:6 

31 

II :  I 

78 

14 

JOEL 

202 

2:13 

173-174 

2:31 

174 

296 


INDEX   OF  SCRIPTURES 


JONAH 

CHAPTER 

PAGE 

CHAPTER 

•^ 

PAGE 

16: 16-17 

140 

1:17 

69 

16:  19 
17:24-27 

162 
63 

MICAH 

21 :  42 

69 

5:2 

78-79 

21 :  i-ii 

166 

21:5 

87 

ZECHARIAH 

22:37 

72 

2:3-5 

216 

22:  40 

63 

9:9 

99, 

III 

23 

65 

11:13 

79 

23:4 

60 

13 

69 

23:2 

64 

13:17 

70 

23:13-36 
26:  26 

60 
106 

MALACHI 

26:32 

166 

I :  II 

102 

26:31 

69 

3:1 

216 

26:54 

69 

MATTHEW 

MARK 

I 

231- 

-232 

1  :  10 

210 

2:5-7 

78 

I  :44 

62 

2:  II 

105. 

140, 

237 

2  :  27 

61 

2:15 

78.87 

6  :8 

251 

5:  I 

251 

7:31 

182 

5:7 

252 

8:31 

69 

5:  12 

63 

9  :  12 

69 

5:17 

64 

12  :  1-8 

68 

5:18 

234 

14  : 12-25 

63 

5:19 

176 

14  :  21 

69 

5:21-37 

65, 

228 

6:9 

166,  202- 

-203, 

205 

LUKE 

7:12 

63 

2 : 46-50 

58 

8:11 

165- 

-166 

2  :48 

238 

8:17 

87 

2  :  52 

168 

9:13 

61 

4  :  18-21 

66 

10:  10 

251 

6:17 

251 

I I : 2-6 

67, 

287 

10  :  22 

123 

12: 11-12 

61 

10  :  30-35 

183-184 

12:7 

61 

II  :  29-32 

69 

12:38-43 

69 

13:33 

68 

15:3-6 

60 

14  :  1-6 

61 

15:  13 

59 

15:11 

111-112 

16:4 

69 

16  :  29 

63-64 

INDEX   OF    SCRIPTURES 


297 


CHAPTER 

JAGE 

CHAPTER 

PAGE 

16 

29,  31 

233 

9 

5                                   145, 

216 

17 

14 

62 

9 

24-26 

76 

18 

9-14 

60 

10 

4 

130 

22 

32 

173 

10 

6-8 

76 

22 

37 

69 

10 

19 

78 

24 

27 

63 

II 

I,  28-29 

76 

24 

44 

JOHN 

69 

II 

14 

9-10 
II 

78 

77 

I 

18 

141 

I  CORINTHIANS 

I 

26 

117 

2 

9 

78 

I 

27 

ii8, 

163 

2 

12-15 

143 

I 

28 

163 

9 

8-10 

81 

2 

6 

116 

-117 

10 

4                                         84 

165 

4 

4 

163 

-164 

13 

2 

143 

4 

7 

164 

14 

21 

78 

4 

18 

128 

-129 

15 

3,  4 

85 

5 

9-18 

62 

15 

50 

103 

5 

20 

217 

15 

54 

78 

5 

46 

63, 

106 

6 

9 

112, 

164 

2  CORINTHIANS 

6 

51 

96 

I 

240 

10 

35 

214 

3 

6 

124 

13 

5 

106 

4 

4 

103 

13 

16 

252 

GALATIANS 

19 

24 

87 

3 
3 

13 
19 

86 

19 

28 

87 

84 

19 

36,  37 

87 

4 

9 

84 

20 

28 

217 

4 

21-31                              8 

1-82 

21 

II 

129 

21 

17 

162 

I 

EPHESIANS 

240 

ACTS 

2 

20 

234 

7 

20-22 

84 

4 

5-6 

142 

15 

II 

60 

4 

8-10 

86 

20 

28 

216 

4 
4 

9 
13 

77 

170 

ROMANS 

6 

13-17 

144 

I 

3 

23s 

I 

17 

78 

PHILIPPIANS 

2 

24 

78 

I 

12-17 

144 

8 

IS 

153 

2 

6 

217 

298 


INDEX   OF   SCRIPTURES 


CHAPTER 

PAGE 

JAMES 

2  ■^ 

141 

-142 

CHAPTER 

PAGE 

2  :  5-11 

144, 

168 

I  :  I 
3  :i 

156 

156 

I  TIMOTHY 

3:16 

216 

I  :  21 

2  PETER 

157 

2  TIMOTHY 

3:8 

84 

3  :  16 

234 

5:7 

I  JOHN 

247 

248 

HEBREWS 

I  :8-9 

80 

JUDE 

I  :  10 

86 

Vs.  4 

156 

2  : 6-8,  13-14 

80 

3:7-11 

80 

5:8 

167- 

-168 

REVELATION 

7  :3,  II,  IS 

83 

8:5>  59 

83 

13  :  17, 

18 

19 

9  :  II,  12,  23,  24 

83 

22  :  5 

214 

10  :  5-7 

86 

22  :  18- 

-19 

234 

INDEX  OF  THE  EARLIER  SOURCES  USED 
AND  OF  THE  MORE  IMPORTANT  RECENT 
WORKS    TO   WHICH  REFERENCE   IS    MADE 


Abbott,    The   Evolution   of  Chris- 
tianity, 268,  272. 
Abelard,  Opera,  172. 
Aboth  of  Rabbi  Nathan,  4. 
D'Achery,    Spicilegium,    150,    155, 

157,  158,  160,  161. 
Adeney,    A    Century's   Progress   in 

Religious    Thought    and    Life, 

266. 
^Ifric,  Homilies,  165,  166. 
Africanus,  Letter  to  Origen,  114. 
Agada  der  Amoraim,  15,  29. 
Agada  der  Tannaiten,  7,  8,  12,  13, 

14,  15,    16,  18,    19,  20-22,  24, 

25,  26,  30,  31,  32,  33. 
Anderson,   The  Bible  and  Modern 

Criticism,  267. 
Anselra,  Cur  Deus  Homo,  167,  168, 

169. 
Aquinas,  Expositio  continua  super 

quatuor  Evangelistas,  175. 
Arnold,     Literature    and     Dogma, 

287. 
Astruc,  Conjectures  sur  la  Genese, 

253; 

Athanasius,   Contra  Gentes,   121. 

De  Incarnatione,  122. 

Festal  Epistle,  121. 

Ln  illud  omnia,  123. 

Oratio  II,  123. 
Athenagoras,    Plea  for  the   Chris- 
tians, 96. 


D'Aubigne,  Reformation  in  Europe 
in  Time  of  Calvin,  221. 

Bacon,  B.  W.,  Introduction  to  the 

N.  T.,  280. 
Hibbert  Journal,  283. 
Bacon,    F.,    The   Advancement    of 

Learning,  226. 
Bacon,     Roger,     Opera     quaedam 

hactenus  iywdita,  151,  177. 
Baedae,  Opera  Historica,  155. 
Bartlett,  The  Veracity  of  the  Hexa- 

teuch,  266. 
Barnabas,  Epistle,  92,  93,  94. 
Barton,  Semitic  Origins,  274. 
Baum,  Capita  ttnd  Butzer,  204. 
Baur,  Christliche  Gnosis,  279. 

Pauliis,  279. 
Benedict,  St.,  Rule,  153. 
Bengel,  Gnomon,  251,  252. 
Bentley,  Epistles  of  Phalaris,  247. 

Phileleutherus  Lipsiensis,  248. 
Benzinger,  Hebrdische  Archdologie, 

289. 
Berachoth,  20,   22,  23,   27,  29,  32, 

60. 
Bereshith  Rabba,  22. 
Bigg,    The  Christian  Platonisls  of 

Alexandria,  109,  no,  in,  113, 

114,  125. 
Bohl,    Alttestamentliche    Citate    im 

N.  T.,  73. 


299 


300 


INDEX  OF   SOURCES 


Bona  Ventura,  Opera  Onmia,  174. 
Breasted,  Ancient  Records  of  Egypt, 

276. 
Briggs,   Study   of  Holy   Scripture, 

272. 
Brown,  F.,  Hebrew  Lexicon,  272. 
Brown,  W.  A.,  Christian  Theology 

in  Outline,  290. 
Bruce,  Apologetics,  268,  278. 

The    Chief    End  of  Revelation, 

287. 
Budde,    The  Religion  of  Israel  to 

the  Exile,  274. 
Buddensieg,    Johann    Wiclif    tmd 

seine  Zeit,  181,  182,  184. 

Calvin,    Commentary    on    Genesis, 
209,  210. 
Commentary  on  Harmony,    210, 

212. 
Commentary  on  Psalms,  211. 
Commentary  on  Hebrews,  211. 
Commentary  on  Isaiah,  211. 
Institutes,  214,  215,  216. 
Tracts,  211. 
Cambridge   Modern   History,    189, 

207,  218. 
Capes,  The  English  Church  in  the 
Fourteenth  and  Fifteenth  Cen- 
turies,   182. 
Carpenter,     Interpretation    in    the 
Nineteenth  Century,  269,  271. 
Chase,  Chrysostom,  119,   134,   137, 

139,  143- 
Cheyne,  Introduction  to  the  Book  of 

Isaiah,  277. 
Christoffel,  Huldreich  Zivingli,  207. 
Chronicles   and   Memoirs   of  Great 

Britain,  etc.,  178. 
Chrysostom,  Homilies  on  Matthew, 
136,    137,    140,    141- 
Homilies  on  John,  137,  141. 
Homilies  on  Hebrews,  137. 


Clement  of  Alexandria,  Stromata, 
109,  no,  112. 

Pcedagogiis,  in. 

Fragment  on  Lost  Son,  in. 
Clement  of  Rome,  First  Letter,  89, 

90. 
Cocceius,  Opera,  244,  255. 
Coleridge,  Aids  to  Reflection,  261. 

Confessions,  270. 
Contentio  Veritatis,  264,  275. 
Coverdale,  Works,  220. 

Darwin,  Origin  of  Species,  263. 

Dictatus  Papae,  162. 

Dillmann,  Die  Genesis,  275. 

Dionysius,  119. 

Dods,  The  Bible,  its  Nature  and 
Origin,  272,  282. 

Dollinger,  Studies  in  European 
History,  177,  178. 

Driver,  Introduction  to  the  Litera- 
ture of  the  Old  Testament,  273. 

Drummond,  Philo  Judaeus,  41. 

Edwards,  J.,  Works,  230,  231,  232. 
Einstein,    The   Italian  Renaissance 

in  England,  19c. 
Epistolae  Karolini  Aevi,  161. 
Erasmus,  Ratio  scu  methodus,  etc., 
191,  193. 
Apologia,  193. 
Enchiridion,  191. 
Paraphrasis,  etc.,  192. 
Ernesti,  Institiitio  Interpretis,  254, 
255- 

Fairbairn,   The  Place  of  Christ  in 
Modern  Theology,  270,  284. 
Studies  in  the  Life  of  Christ,  2%^. 

Fisher,  G.  P.,  History  of  the  Chris- 
tian Church,  245. 

Fisher,  The  Medicrval  Empire,  150. 

Fox,  Journal,  228. 


INDEX  OF  SOURCES 


301 


Francke,  Manududio  ad  lecHonem 
scripturae  sacrae,  249. 

Frankel,  Einfluss  der  paldstinischen 
Exegese  aiif  die  alexandrin- 
ische  Hermenentik,  41. 

Geiger,  Das  Studium  der  hebr. 
Sprache,  etc.,  191. 

Gerson,  Propositiones,  186. 

Gieseler,  Kirchengeschichte,  150, 
152,  i93>  196,  207. 

Gilbert,  The  Revelation  of  Jesus, 
288. 

Goodwin,  T.,  Works,  236,  240. 

Gregory  the  Great,  Regula  Pas- 
tor alls,  155. 

Gregory  Thaumaturgus,  Pane- 
gyric, 114. 

Gregory  of  Tours,  Monumenta 
Germaniae  Historica,  etc.,  153, 
154- 

Hagenbach,  History  of  the  Reforma- 
tion, 190. 

Hall,  C.  C.,  Universal  Elements 
of  the  Christian  Religion,  284. 

Hall,  J.,  Works,  235. 

Henderson,  Documejits,   149,   178. 

Henry,  Das  Leben  Johann  Calvins, 
213. 

Herder,  Sdmmtliche  Werke,  257,  258. 
Spirit  of  Hebreiv  Poetry,  257. 

Hippol}'tus,  Christ  and  Antichrist, 

131- 
Ilept  Ilapot/xtwv,  131. 

Hoffding,  History  of  Modern  Phi- 
losophy, 227. 

Hogarth,  Authority  and  Archaeology, 
276,  277. 

Holstein,  Die  Reformation  im  Spie- 
gelbilde,  etc.,  189,  190,  192. 

Hook,  Lives  of  the  Archbishops  of 
Canterbury,  167. 


Hooker,  R.,  Works,  230. 

Hiihn,  Die  alttestatnentlichen  Ci- 
tate,  etc.,  68,  73. 

Huxley,  Science  and  Hebrew  Tra- 
dition, 271. 

Ignatius,  Letters,  95,  96. 
Irensus,    Against    Heresies,    103- 
106. 
Fragment,  105. 

Jerome,  Epistolae,  134. 

De  viris  illustribus,  133,  134. 

To  Paiiliniis,  120. 
John  of  Damascus,   Exposition  of 

the  Orthodox  Faith,  143. 
Jonathan,  Tar  gum  of  the  Prophets, 

17- 
Jowett,  Essays  and  Reviews,   266, 

269. 
Julicher,  Introduction  to  the  N.  T., 

283. 
Justin,  Address  to  the  Greeks,  97. 
First  Apology,  97-102. 
Dialogue  with  Trypho,  97-102. 

Kalkoff,  Die  Depeschen  des  Nuntius 

Aleander,  192. 
Karpeles,   Geschichle  der  jiidischen 

Literatur,  8,  11,  32. 
Kempis,   Imitation  of  Christ,   187, 

188. 
Kihn,     Die    Bedeutung   der   antio- 

chenischen  Schule,    108,    132, 

^33^  135.  136,  139.  143- 
King,   Reconstruction  in  Theology, 

270. 
Kostlin,  Martin  Luther,  etc.,   194, 

197,  201,  202. 

Lessing,  Werke,  255,  256. 
Lightfoot,  J.,  Works,  240,  241. 
Lilly,  Renaissance  Types,  206. 


302 


INDEX   OF   SOURCES 


Lombard,    Libri    Quatuor    Senten- 

tiarum,  169,  171. 
Loserth,  Wiclif  and  Hus,  182. 
Lowth,  Lectures  on  Hebrew  Poetry, 

256. 
Luther,  Werke,  186,  197,  198,  199, 

200-203. 
Table  Talk,  188,   195,   196,  204, 

206. 

Mabillon,   Life  and   Works  of  St. 

Bernard,  173. 
Martineau,    Seat    of  Authority    in 

Religion,  271 
Mayerhoff,   Johann  Reuchlin,  etc., 

187,  190,  191. 
McCurdy,  Recent  Research  in  Bible 

Lands,  277. 
Mechilta,  21. 
Melanchthon,  Loci  Communes,  205, 

206. 
Meyer,     Geschichte    der    Schrifter- 

kldrung,  225. 
Migne,  Patrologia  Latina,  156,  162, 

163,  172,  173. 
Milton,  Of  Reform  in  England,  233. 
Against  Prelacy,  257. 
Church  Doctrine,   236. 
Paradise  Lost,  236. 
Monk,  Life  of  Richard  Bentley,  247, 

248. 
Montalembert,  Monks  of  the  West, 

150- 
Monumenta  Germaniae   Historica: 

Scriptores,  151,  154. 
Mullinger,   Schools  of  Charles  the 

Great,  147,  149,  157,  159. 

Nestle,  Introduction  to  the  Textual 
Criticism  of  the  Greek  Neiu 
Testament,  193. 

Newman,  Apologia  pro  vita  sua, 
266. 


Nowack,    Hebrdische    Archaologie, 


Onkelos,  Tar  gum,  17. 

Origen,  Commentary  on  John,  114, 
115,  117,  118. 
De  Principiis,  11 5-1 17. 

Owen,  Evenings  with  the  Skeptics, 
147,  171. 

Owen,  John,  The  Glorious  Mys- 
tery of  the  Person  of  Christ, 
230,  231. 

Pascal,      Thoughts,     Letters,     and 

Opuscules,  230. 
Peabody,   Hibbert  Journal,   286. 
Philo,  De  praemiis  et  poenis,  36. 

De  plantatione  Noe,  44,  45,  52. 

De  posteritate  Caini,  45. 

De  profugis,  48. 

De  migratione  Abrahami,  7,  43. 

De  nominibus,  57. 

Legis  alleg.,  37,  43,  44-48,  5°,  52. 
56. 

De  gigantibus,  48. 

De  eo  quod,  etc.,  52. 

De  decalogo,  44. 

De  Abrahamo,  32,  36,  43. 

De  opificio  mundi,  36,  49,  50,  53, 
56. 

Quaest.  et  sol.,  49,  54-57. 

Quis  rerum  div.,  etc.,  42,  57. 

Quod  deus  sit  immutabilis,  43. 

Quod  omnis  probus  liber,  37. 

De  spec,  legum,  37. 

De  somniis,  46,  47,  50,  52. 

De  sacriftciis  Abelis  et  Caini,  49. 

Vita  Mosis,  38,  42,  43,  46,    47, 

54- 
Pirqe  Aboth,  4,  5,  7,  10,  12,  13,  19, 

20,27,  28,32,33. 
Planck,    Geschichte  der  Protestant. 

Theologie,  etc.,  225. 


INDEX   OF   SOURCES 


303 


Polycarp,  Letter  to  the  Philippians, 
95- 

Rambach,  Institutiones  hermeneu- 
ticae  sacrae,  249,  250. 

Reuss,  History  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, 245. 

Ritter,  Philo  und  die  Halachah,  41. 

Robinson,  Original  Letters  relative 
to  the  English  Reformation,  221. 

Romberg,  Die  Lehre  Lnthefs  von 
der  heiligen  Schrift,  196,  197. 

Rule,  The  Life  and  Times  of  St. 
Anselm,  167. 

Ryle,  Philo  and  Holy  Scripture,  43. 
The  Canon  of  the  Old  Testament, 
207. 

Sabatier,  Religions  of  Authority,  etc. 

268. 
Sanday,  Inspiration,  270. 
Sayce,    The  Higher  Criticism  and 

the  Monuments,  274. 
Schabbath,  28. 
Schaff,  Creeds  of  Christendom,  220, 

233- 
Schleiermacher,     Reden    iiber    die 

Religion,  261. 
Hermeneutik,  266. 
Schultz,  Christian  Apologetics,  270. 
Schwab,  Le  Talmud,  12,  20,  32. 
Sell,  Philip  Melanchthon,  204. 
Semler,     Apparatus     ad     literalem 

Novi     Testamenti     interpreta- 

tionem,  254. 
Siegfried,    Philo  von  Alexandrien, 

etc.,  37,  38,  46,  49. 
Simon,  Histoire  Critique,  239,  245, 

246. 
Siphra,  21. 
Smith,    G.    A.,    Modern    Criticism 

and  the  Preaching  of  the  O.  T., 

27s,  278. 


Historical  Geography  of  the  Holy 

Land,  289. 
Smith,  W.  R.,  O.  T.  in  the  Jewish 

Church,  207. 
Spinoza,  Works,  242,  243. 

Tractatus    theologico-politicus, 

243-244. 
Stahelin,  Huldreich  Zwingli,  207. 
Strauss,  Leben  Jesii,  279. 
Strype,  Memoirs  of  Cranmer,  219, 

220. 
Annals  of  the  Reformation,  220. 
Swedenborg,    The   True   Christian 

Religion,  229. 
Swete,     Theodore's     Commentary, 

139.  141.  143.  144- 

Taylor,  Works,  237,  238. 
Theodore,  Ad  Galatas,  136,  138. 

Ad  Rom.,  144. 

Ad  Ephes.,  144. 

Ad  Phil.,  145. 

Epistola  ad  1  Tim.,  145. 
Theologia  Germanica,  186,  188. 
Theophilus,  Ad  Autolycum,  97. 
Toy,  Quotations  in  the  N.  T.,  72, 

74,  77- 
Tyndale,  Doctrinal  Treatises,  222. 

Ullmann,      Reformers     before     the 

Reformation,  186. 
Ussher,  Annates  Vet.  Test.,  237. 

Vaughan,    Life   and   Labors   of  St. 

Thomas  Aquinas,  177. 
Vollmer,  Die  alttestamentlichen  Ci- 

tate  bei  Paulus,  74,  82. 

Wendt,    The    Gospel   according   to 

St.  John,  283. 
De  Wette,  Beitrdge  zur  Einleitung 

im  AT.,  261. 


304 


INDEX   OF  SOURCES 


Wesley,  J.,  Works,  231. 
Westminster  Confession,  232,  234. 
Whitby,      Disputation     on     Holy 

Scripture,  221. 
Windelband,  History  of  Philosophy, 

177. 
Winter  and  Wiinsche,  Die  jUdische 

Literatur,  12,  31. 


Wisdom  of  Solomon,  41. 

Wrede,    Untersuchung  zum    i    Cle- 

mensbrief  88,  go. 
Wyclif,  Select  English  Works,  182, 

183,  185. 
Tractatus  de  ecclesia,  182,  184. 

Zwingli,  Select  Works,  190,  207. 


INDEX   OF   SUBJECTS 


Abelard,  his  significance  for  inter- 
pretation, 171-172;  relation  to 
the  Fathers,  172. 

^Ifric,  relation  to  the  Fathers,  165- 
166. 

Agobard,  use  of  Song  of  Solomon 
and  Apocalypse,   162. 

Agricola,  study  of  Greek,  igo. 

Allegorical  interpretation:  in  Jew- 
ish writers,  24-26,  40,  41 ;  in 
classical  antiquity,  39-41 ;  among 
the  Hellenists,  41 ;  in  Philo,  43- 
55;  in  Paul,  81-82;  in  The 
Shepherd,  91;  in  Barnabas,  92- 
93;  in  Justin,  100-102;  in 
Clement  of  Alexandria,  109-112; 
in  Jerome,  112;  in  Origen,  iis- 
iiS;  in  Dionysius,  119;  in  Eu- 
sebius,  119;  in  Athanasius,  120- 
124;  in  Augustin,  124-129;  in 
Bede,  155;  in  Erigena,  163-165; 
in  Abelard,  172;  in  mediaeval 
writers  in  general,  179-180;  in 
Reuchlin,  191 ;  in  Erasmus,  igi- 
192 ;  in  Luther,  198-199,  201- 
203 ;  in  Melanchthon,  204-205 ; 
in  Coverdale,  220;  in  Tyndale, 
222;  in  the  seventeenth  and 
eighteenth  centuries,  230,  232 ; 
in  Pascal,  230;  in  Edwards, 
230-232. 

Allegory,  Heraclitus'  definition,  40. 

Anselm,  general  view  of  Scripture, 
167;  dogmatic  method  of  exege- 
sis, 167-169. 

Antioch,  relation  to  Origen,  132; 
origin  of  the  school,   133. 


Aquinas,  chief  biblical  works,  175; 
relation  to  the  Fathers,  175-176; 
to  Aristotle,  176;  his  exegetical 
method,  176-177. 

Astruc,  the  documentary  hypothesis 
of  Genesis,  253. 

Athanasius,  general  character  as  an 
interpreter,  120;  his  conception 
of  the  Bible,  121;  an  Alexan- 
drian in  exegesis,  121-124. 

Athenagoras,  96-97. 

Augustin,  exegetical  qualifications, 
124,  131;  an  Alexandrian  in 
exegesis,  124-129;  regard  for 
the  literal  sense,  125;  on  the 
titles  of  the  Psalms,  127-128; 
interpretation  of  numbers,    129. 

Bacon,  F.,  236. 

Bacon,  R.,  177-178. 

Barnabas,  influence  on  exegesis, 
92 ;  sense  of  Scripture  hidden, 
92-93;    O.  T.  a  book  of  types, 

93-94- 

Baur,   the  critical  movement,   261. 

Bede,  relation  to  the  Fathers,  155 ; 
allegorized  all  Scripture,  155; 
the  magisterial  tone  of  his 
exegesis,  156;  bound  by  tradi- 
tion,  156-157. 

Bengel,  defects  in  his  exegetical 
method,  250-252 ;  excellences, 
252-253. 

Bentley,  significance  for  exegesis, 
247-248. 

Bernard,  172-173. 

Bonaventura,  174-175. 


305 


3o6 


INDEX  OF  SUBJECTS 


Cahan,  his  view  of  exegetical  quali- 
fications, 208;  his  great  merit, 
209 ;  reaction  from  allegorical 
interpretation,  209-210;  view  of 
inspiration,  210;  lack  of  his- 
torical sense,  211-212;  his  fatal 
exegetical  defect,  212-219;  neg- 
lect of  context,  217-218;  special 
pleading,  218. 

Christ  as  speaking  in  the  O.  T.,  88, 
89,  98,  182,  185,  198,  201,  204, 
205,  213,  220,  222,  231. 

Chronology,  237,  241,  275-276. 

Chrysostom,  general  view  of  his 
relation  to  exegesis,  134-135; 
relation  to  the  traditional  doc- 
trine of  inspiration,  136-137; 
his  chief  exegetical  merit,  137- 
138;  dogmatic  presuppositions, 
139-141. 

Clement  of  Alexandria,  equipment 
as  an  interpreter,  109 ;  relation 
to  Philo,  109-110;  threefold 
sense  of  Scripture,  no;  allego- 
rized the  N.  T.,  111-112. 

Clement  of  Rome,  the  O.  T.  a 
Christian  book,  88;  Christ  in 
O.  T.,   89. 

Cocceius,  238,   244,  245. 

Coleridge,  260. 

Colet,  190. 

Comparative  Religion,  263,  264. 

Coverdale,  220. 

Cranmer,  220. 

Criticism,  Historical,  aim  and 
method,  266;  opposition  to, 
266-267;  estimates  of,  267-268; 
important  results  of,  268-290; 
still  imperfectly  applied  and  only 
partially  appreciated,  290-292. 

Diodore  of  Antioch,  133-134. 
Dionysius  of  Alexandria,   119. 


Edwards,  230-232. 

Einhard,  162. 

Ephrem,  134. 

Erasmus,  his  attitude  toward  Ori- 
gen,  191;  his  exegesis  mystical 
and  dogmatic,  192;  his  signifi- 
cance   for    interpretation,     192- 

193- 
Erigena,    relation   to   the    Fathers, 

162-163. 
Ernesti,  the  literal  sense  alone  to  be 

accepted,  254-255. 
Excavations,  261. 
Ezra,  significance  for  interpretation, 

3-5- 

Fathers,  influence  on  exegesis,  146, 
i49>  153.  155.  157,  162,  163,  165, 
169,  175,  176,  182,  195,  212-219, 
223,  235. 

Fourfold  sense  of  Scripture,  159. 

Fox,  228-229. 

Freedom  of  research,  262-263. 

Gematria,  19-20. 

Gerson,  185-186. 

Gesenius,  261. 

Gnostic  interpretation,   102-103. 

Goch,  John,  185-186. 

Goodwin,  Thomas,  236. 

Greek,  beginning  of  modern  study 

of,  190-191. 
Gregory  the  Great,  154. 
Gregory  of  Tours,  154. 
Griessbach,  249. 
Grocyn,  190. 
Grosseteste,  177-178. 
Grotius,   238,   239,   240. 
Guyon,  229. 

Haggada,  8. 
Halacha,  8. 
Hall,  Jos.,  235. 


INDEX   OF   SUBJECTS 


307 


Hebrew,  beginning  of  modern 
study  of,  190-191. 

Hebrews,  the  author's  disregard  of 
the  context  in  his  use  of  the  O.  T., 
80-81 ;  seeks  a  hidden  sense  in 
the  O.  T.,  82-84;  his  interpreta- 
tion of  the  Messianic  element  in 
the  O.  T.,  86;  influence  on  the 
exegesis  of  the  second  century, 
106. 

Herder,  significance  of,  for  exegesis, 
257-258- 

Hermas,  91. 

Hooker,  R.,  229. 

Hugo  of  St.  Victor,  173-174. 

Ignatius,  95-96. 

Inspiration,  Philo's  view  of,  41-43; 
in  Athenagoras,  96-97;  in  Theo- 
philus,  97;  in  Origen,  115;  in 
Athanasius,  121;  in  Theodore, 
136;  in  Chrysostom,  136-137; 
in  Bede,  157;  in  Luther,  196; 
in  Calvin,  210;  in  the  West- 
minster Confession,  233-235 ;  in 
modern  interpretation,  269-271. 

Intelligibility  of  Scripture,  232,  233, 
246. 

Irenseus,  principles  of  interpreta- 
tion, 103-104. 

Isidore  of  Seville,  threefold  sense 
of  Scripture,  155. 

Jerome,  general  survey  of  his  rela- 
tion to  exegesis,  119;  the  his- 
torical and  allegorical  elements 
in,  120. 

Jesus  as  an  interpreter  of  the  O.  T., 
significance  of  the  scene  in  the 
temple,  58-59 ;  interpretative 
significance  of  his  personal  atti- 
tude toward  the  oral  law  and 
O.  T.  institutions,  59-60;  toward 


the  written  law,  67-63;  inter- 
pretation of  the  written  law  as 
seen  in  his  teaching,  63-66; 
interpretation  of  the  Messianic 
element  in  the  O.  T.,  66-72; 
qualifications  for  interpretation, 
72- 
Jewish  interpretation,  significance 
of,  I ;  classic  age  cf,  2  ;  mediaeval, 
2,  1Q3;  on  the  origin  and  scope 
of  Scripture,  14-16;  its  license 
in  dealing  with  the  text,  17-21; 
the  rules  of  Eliezer,  20-21; 
change  of  vowels,  20;  the  essen- 
tial and  the  incidental,  21-23; 
the  assumption  of  a  hidden  mean- 
ing, 23-26;  fourfold  sense,  two- 
fold sense,  23;  conjectural  and 
speculative,  26-29;  rules  of 
Hillel,  29 ;  regard  for  the  con- 
te.xt,  29 ;  particles,  29-30 ;  Scrip- 
ture to  be  interpreted  as  other 
books,     30;      spiritual     insight, 

30-34- 
John,  the  apostle,  interpretation  of 

the    Messianic    element    in    the 

O.  T.,  86-87. 
John  of  Damascus,  143. 
Justin,  the  Logos  in  the  O.  T.,  97- 

98;     the    predictive    element    in 

the    O.     T.,     99;    spiritualizing 

exegesis,  100-102. 

Kabbala,  21. 

Kempis,  exegesis  in,   186-187. 

Lanfranc,  166-167. 

Law,  oral,  10-T4,  28-29;  bear- 
ing of,  on  the  interpretation 
of  the  Pentateuch,  11-12; 
Jesus'    relation    to,    59-60. 

Law,  written,  an  absolute  revelation 
of  God,  12-13;  its  origin,  i3-i4- 


3o8 


INDEX   OF  SUBJECTS 


Leo  III,  162. 

Lessing,  significance  for  exegesis, 
255-256- 

Lightfoot,  J.,  240-241. 

Linacre,  191. 

Logos  read  into  Jewish  Scriptures, 
97-98. 

Lombard,  Sentences,  151,  169,  170; 
dependence  on  the  Fathers,  169- 
171. 

Lowth,  256-257. 

Luther,  relation  to  Reuchlin,  192 ; 
his  equipment,  193-194;  rela- 
tion to  the  Fathers,  194-196; 
on  inspiration,  196;  favorite 
biblical  books,  197 ;  commentary 
on  Psalms,  197-201 ;  on  Genesis, 
201 ;  on  the  Minor  Prophets, 
201-202  ;  interpretation  of  Lord's 
Prayer,  202-203;  strength  and 
weakness  as  an  exegete,  203-204. 

Lyra,  193. 

Matthew,  disregard  of  the  context 
in  his  interpretation  of  the  O.  T., 
78-80;  interpretation  of  the 
Messianic  element  in  the  O.  T., 
86-87. 

Matthews  Bible,    219. 

Mediaeval  interpretation,  general 
estimate  of,   179-180. 

Melanchthon,  teacher  of  Greek, 
190;  general  exegetical  position, 
204-205 ;  interpretation  of  the 
Lord's  Prayer,  205-206;  dog- 
matic character  of  his  exegesis 
compared  with  that  of  Luther, 
206. 

Mill,  249. 

Molinos,  229. 

Moses,  author  of  Pentateuch,  13- 
14;  Philo's  conception  of,  42- 
43;     authorship    of    Pentateuch 


rejected  by  Historical  Criticism, 
273-274. 

Notarikon,  18-20. 
Numbers,     symbolism  of,    in    the 
O.  T.,  49-50- 

Origen,  general  survey  of  his  rela- 
tion to  exegesis,  112-113;  equip- 
ment, 113-114;  dogmatic  bias, 
II 4-1 15;  development  of  alle- 
gorical method,  115;  threefold 
sense  of  Scripture  established, 
115-117;  allegorical  tendency 
limited  by  tradition,  118;  relation 
to  Antiochian  school,   132. 

Pascal,  230. 

Paul,  disregard  of  the  context  in  his 
interpretation  of  the  O.  T.,  75- 
77;  use  of  allegory,  81-82;  in- 
fluenced by  Jewish  legends,  84; 
interpretation  of  the  Messianic 
element  in  the  O.  T.,  84-86. 

Pellican,  190. 

Philo,  general  survey  of  his  equip- 
ment and  purpose,  35-37;  his 
conception  of  Greek  philosophy, 
37;  dependent  on  the  Septua- 
gint,  38-39 ;  on  the  classical 
principle  of  allegorical  inter- 
pretation, 39-41 ;  view  of  in- 
spiration, 41-43;  two  senses  of 
Scripture,  43-46;  the  allegori- 
cal sense,  43-55;  laws  of  alle- 
gorical speech,  46-48;  interpre- 
tation of  numbers,  49-50;  sig- 
nificance of  etymologies,  50-51; 
symbolism  of  natural  objects, 
52-55;  sense  of  proportion,  55; 
presuppositions,  55-56;  exegesis 
conditioned  by  philosophical 
views,  56-57. 


INDEX  OF  SUBJECTS 


309 


Philosophy,    modern,    influence   on 

exegesis,  226-227. 
Predictive  prophecy,  88,  89,  98,  99, 

100,  105,  129,  130,   182,  277-279. 

Radbertus,  1 60-1 61. 

Rambach,  249-250. 

Ratramnus,  160-161. 

Reformers,  general  relation  to 
interpretation,  188-189;  signifi- 
cance for  exegesis,  222-223; 
English  reformers  dependent  on 
the  exegesis  of  the  continent, 
219-220. 

Renaissance,  general  relation  to 
interpretation,  189-193. 

Reuchlin,  teacher  of  Hebrew,  190; 
mystical  interpretation  of,  191. 

Revelation  and  the  Bible,  268-269. 

Rule  of  St.  Benedict,  149,  153. 

Schleiermacher,  260-261. 

Science,  261,  263. 

Semler,    contribution    to    exegesis, 

254- 

Septuagint,  38-39;  dependence  of 
N.  T.  writers  upon,  73-74. 

Simon,  composition  of  Pentateuch, 
246;  importance  of  tradition, 
246. 

Spinoza,  in  general,  238-239 ;  in- 
terpretation of  Scripture  analo- 
gous to  that  of  Nature,  241-242  ; 
on  the  divinity  of  Scripture,  242  ; 
view  of  prophecy,  242-243 ;  the 
aim  of  Scripture,  243-244;  com- 
position of  the  Pentateuch,  244. 

Strauss,  261. 

Swedenborg,  228-229. 


Synagogue,  the  Great,  4,  5,  10. 
Syrian  type  of  exegesis  in  the  West- 
ern Church,  143-145. 

Talmud,  9. 

Tatian,  97. 

Taylor,  Jeremy,  237-238. 

Theodore,  general  survey,  134-135; 
view  of  inspiration  and  canon, 
136;  chief  merit  as  an  inter- 
preter, 137-138;  xaew  of  proph- 
ecy, 138;  dogmatic  bias,  141- 
142. 

Theologia  Germanica,  significance 
for  exegesis,    186-187. 

Theophilus,  97. 

Titles  of  the  Psalms,  127-128,  154. 

Trent,  Council  of,  225. 

Tyndale,  219,  221,  222. 

Typology,  in  Barnabas,  93-94;  in 
Irenajus,  105-106;  in  Owen, 
230;  in  Edwards,  230-231. 

Unam  Sanclam,  its  exegesis,   178- 

179. 
Ussher,  237. 

Westminster  Confession,  Scripture 
an  infallible  rule  of  interpreta- 
tion,  233;    inspiration,   233-235. 

De  Wette,  260-261. 

Wettstein,  249. 

Whittaker,  221. 

Winer,  261. 

Wyclif,  method  of  exegesis,  182- 
184;  exaltation  of  the  Bible, 
especially  the  N.  T.,  184-185. 

Zwingli,  207. 


Sy  the  same  author 
A  Pfimet  of 

THE  CHRISTIAN  RELIGION 

Based  on  the  Teaching  of  Jesus, 
its    Founder    and    Living    Lord. 

By  GEORGE  HOLLEY  GILBERT,  D.D. 

Fornierly  Professor  of  New  Testament  Literature  and 
Interpretation,  in  the  Chicago   Theological  Seminary 

Cloth,  i6mo,  $1.00  net ;  by  mail,  $1.07 
The  book  is  unique  in  its  lucid  simplicity 


Its  assumption  is  that  as  a  doctrine  Christianity  is  neither  less  nor  more 
than  the  teaching  of  Jesus. 

Its  range  covers  the  great  events  in  the  life  of  Jesus  and  the  facts  in  his 
teaching. 

Its  language  is  that  of  common  life,  free  from  technicality  and  theory. 

Its  whole  aim  is  to  present  the  essentials  of  Christianity  and  the  practi- 
cal interests  of  religion  —  the  facts  of  Christ's  teaching  rather 
than  inferences  from  it. 

It  is  helpful  and  stimulating  to  those  who  are  trying  to  listen  in  the 
babel  of  doctrinal  teaching  for  the  clear  voice  of  Christ. 


THE    MACMILLAN    COMPANY 

PUBLISHEES,   64-66  FIFTH  AVENUE,  NEW  YOEK 


Earlier  Publications  by  the 
Rev.  GEORGE  HOLLEY  GILBERT 


Each,  cloth,  i2mo,  $i.2§  net 


THE  REVELATION  OF  JESUS 

"  This  is  the  most  noteworthy  historical  study  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment Sources  of  Christian  doctrine  that  has  appeared  in  English 
since  the  publication  of  Professor  McGiffert's  '  The  Apostolic 
Age.'  "  —  The  Outlook. 


THE  FIRST  INTERPRETERS  OF  JESUS 

"Nothing  could  be  fairer  than  the  effort  made  by  Professor 
Gilbert  to  draw  out  the  thought  of  the  first  interpreters  of  Christ 
without  injecting  his  own  predilections  ;  and  the  result  is  illu- 
minative and  helpful."  —  The  Independent. 


THE  STUDENTS  LIFE  OF  JESUS 

"  Acutcness,  candor,  and  conspicuous  fidelity  to  its  purpose  are 
the  notable  characteristics  of  this  .  .  .  useful  book." 

—  Congregationalist. 


THE  STUDENT^S  LIFE  OF  JESUS 

"  We  unreservedly  and  heartily  commend  this  volume." 

—  Zion's  Herald. 


THE    MACMILLAN    COMPANY 

PUBLISHERS,   64-66  FIFTH   AVENUE,   NEW  YOEK 


TOUCHING  THE   RELATIONS  OF  CHRIST 
TO  OUR  MODERN   LIFE 

These  books  are  of  special  value :  — 
By  JOSEPH  ALEXANDER  LEIGHTON,  Ph.D. 

Professor  of  Philosophy  and  Psychology  in  Hobart  College 

JESUS  CHRIST  AND  THE 
CIVILIZATION  OF  TO-DAY 

Cloth,  i2mo,  $i.jo  net 

The  aim  of  this  work  is  to  set  forth  the  ethical  teaching  of  Jesus 
as  furnishing  a  moral  and  spiritual  foundation  for  the  life  of  mod- 
ern culture.  It  considers  the  attitude  of  Jesus,  both  towards  the 
world  of  nature  and  towards  the  human  will,  and  examines  the 
moral  principles  of  Jesus  in  their  application  to  the  individual  life 
and  to  society.  The  significance  of  Jesus'  personality  as  an  ethical 
leader  is  also  considered. 


By  HENRY  S.   NASH 

Professor  of  New   Testament  Interpretation    in    the    Episcopal 
Theological  School  at  Cambridge 

ETHICS  AND  REVELATION 

Cloth,  i2mo,  $1.50 

"This  is  a  great  book.  It  is  a  poem  in  prose,  a  study  in  English 
—  felicitous  and  forcible,  a  study  in  history  and  sociology,  in  the 
subjective  spiritual  life  and  in  ecclesiastical  fundamentals.  The 
author  is  a  rare  rhetorician  and  guides  one  through  gardens  of 
beauty,  but  they  are  gardens  among  the  mountains.  .  .  .  Every 
word  of  the  six  lectures  should  be  read  by  thoughtful  men  of  the 
day,  ministers  and  laymen,  believers  and  sceptics." 

—  John  H.  Vincent. 


By  the  Rev.   R.  J.   CAMPBELL 

Minister  in  the  City   Temple,  London 

CHRISTLAJSriTY  AND 

THE  SOCLAL  ORDER 

Cloth,  i2mo,  $1.50  net 

An  effort  to  show  that  the  so-called  "  modernism  "  is  a  return  to 
the  primitive  Christian  evangel. 


By  the  REV.   WALTER  RAUSCHENBUSCH 

Professor  of  Church  History  in  Rochester  Theological  Seminary 

CHRISTIANITY  AND 

THE  SOCIAL  CRISIS 

Cloth,  i2mo,  $1.50  net 

"  It  is  of  the  sort  to  make  its  readers  feel  that  the  book  was 
bravely  written  to  free  an  honest  man's  heart  ;  that  conscientious 
scholarship,  hard  thinking,  and  the  determination  to  tell  the  truth 
as  he  sees  it,  have  wrought  it  out  and  enriched  it  ;  that  it  is  written 
in  a  clear,  incisive  style  ;  that  stern  passion  and  gentle  sentiment 
stir  at  times  among  the  words,  and  keen  wit  and  grim  humor  flash 
here  and  there  in  the  turn  of  a  sentence  ;  and  that  there  is  a  noble 
end  in  view.  If  the  hope  be  too  confident,  if  there  be  once  in 
a  while  a  step  taken  beyond  the  line  of  justice  into  indignation,  if 
a  quaint  old  prejudice  or  even  animosity  bustles  to  the  front  in  an 
emergency — no  matter.  It  is  a  book  to  like,  to  learn  from,  and, 
though  the  theme  be  sad  and  serious,  to  be  charmed  with." 

—  iV.  Y.  7'imes'  Sat,  Review  of  Books. 


By  the  REV.   SHAILER  MATHEWS 

Professor  of  New  Testament  History  and  Interpretation  in  the 
University  of  Chicago 

THE  CHURCH  AND  THE 

CHANGING  ORDER 

Cloth,  i2mo,  $1.50  net 

"...  a  most  interesting  and  valuable  contribution  to  the  litera- 
ture of  a  subject  that  is  growing  in  popular  attention  every  day. 
While  among  the  deeply,  really  religious  and  genuinely  scientific 
there  is  no  conflict  or  antagonism  where  even  there  is  not  accord, 
this  unfortunately  is  not  commonly  the  case  among  the  masses  who 
have  only  caught  the  forms  of  religious  and  scientific  knowledge 
without  their  spirit.  This  book  is  addressed  much  more  it  seems 
to  the  religious  than  the  scientific,  possibly  because  the  latter 
have  the  less  need  for  repentance.  Those  who  are  troubled  in 
any  way  at  the  seeming  conflict  between  the  demands  of  faith,  on 
the  one  hand,  and  the  experiences  of  their  own  reason  and  the 
problems  of  modern  social  and  industrial  life  will  find  here  much 
sage,  illuminating,  and  practical  counsel."  —  Evening  Post. 


THE    MACMILLAN    COMPANY 

PUBLISHEES,  64-66  FIFTH  AVENUE,   NEW  YOEZ 


-■  f-^  i.r^T7 


h\ 


■  -•♦ 


